PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-Hillary

(Proudly cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

The more I hear about the "Just Say No Deal""PUMA""Stop Obama" coalition, the more perplexed I become. They say they're not aligned with the GOP, but many of them are explicitly out to elect John McBush over Barack Obama this fall. They say they're all out to "change" the Democratic Party after seeing what happened to Hillary Clinton, but they seem to think they can "change" the party by leaving the party. They claim to be standing up for "progressive" principles, yet they are now opposing the one candidate left in the Presidential Race who will work for the progressive cause when elected President.

So how exactly do we make sense of "PUMA"? Follow me after the flip to find out...

Ever since January, The Confluence has been a must-read for me. Back when it was a pro-Hillary blog, I loved to escape to this refuge from the nastiness present at major progressive blogs like Daily Kos. But over time, I've noticed a subtle change at this and other soon-to-be "PUMA" sites like No Quarter. Over time, my once favorite blogs became less pro-Hillary and more anti-Obama. And now, these sites have become just as nasty in their anti-Obama zeal as Kos was anti-Hillary.

But hold on, it isn't just the nastiness of "PUMA" that disturbs me. It's their self-defeating effort to "preserve progressive values". I mean, haven't we all complained about the ugly, misogynistic treatment given to Hillary by the media elite? So why should we now cheer on the ugly, misogynistic treatment now given to Michelle Obama? Haven't we all admired Hillary's hard work for universal health care, children's issues, women's rights, world peace, and so much more? So why should we now throw support to someone who opposes nearly everything that Hillary has fought so hard for?

Aren't there better ways for Hillary Clinton Democrats to channel the anger from the primaries? After all if we don't like what the DNC is doing, we can reform it. If we don't like what happened to Hillary, we can change the system to ensure no good Democratic woman suffers what Hillary has suffered through. If we want to promote Hillary's causes, we can elect a Democratic President & Democratic Congress to make sure we see progress on these causes. I just can't understand the "logic" of PUMA in focusing all their attention on stopping Obama and helping (directly or indirectly) John McBush.

Hillary isn't helped if we elect McBush. PUMA's efforts now will come back to bite them later. It will come back to bite them when President McBush kills universal health care, does nothing to make the economy work for working people, obliterates our Constitutional rights, destroys our civil rights, keeps our troops in the quagmire in Iraq, does nothing to actually make this nation more secure, ignores the climate crisis, and keeps this nation on the wrong track. Is this what Hillary would want us to do? Make this guy our next President?

I sympathize with all of those who are still hurting from Hillary's decision to step out of the race. I was crying as well. But when I really thought about it, I realized why she did it. Hillary cares about this nation more than her own personal ambitions, so she's supporting Barack Obama for President in order to make our dreams into reality.

So really, these "PUMA" folks need to stop and think before they carry on. What would Hillary really want us to do to support the causes close to her heart? What should we do as Democrats to strengthen our party? What should we do as progressives to ensure our nation moves forward? The answer for me is clear. And if "PUMA" actually still thinks what they're doing is pro-Hillary, pro-Democratic, and pro-progressive, then I think they're sorely mistaken.

{And btw, please join me in fighting the smears! :-) }

Tags: Barack Obama, Dirty Tricks, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Supporters, John McCain, presidential election, progressive values, PUMA, Republicans (all tags)

Comments

239 Comments

Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

Go ahead... Let 'er rip! ;-)

by atdleft 2008-06-16 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

PUMA is a joke.

Party Unity My Ass?

Real mature and classy people.

All 5 of them.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-16 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

yeah that Cavuto clip was priceless - he asked how many people they had on a conference call this weekend (how many of the 18 million that voted for Hillary was what he was referencing) - drum roll........50. Fifty.  Five Zero.  Massive movement that PUMA.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-06-16 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

I was reading noquarter last night (yes, I have a perverse streak) and someone was bragging that they now have a whole 247 people signed up on PUMA.  

My teenage daughter has more friends than that on Facebook.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

FYI, the site started less than 2 weeks ago and is growing.  I have not only joined PUMA, but am recruiting others to join too--which has not been too much of a problem thus far. I've signed up friends and members of my extended family--they plan to do the same also.

You see, unlike you Obamatans (especially African American Bo supporters) who threatened to riot if HRC won the nomination, we at PUMA are organizing and exercising our right to vote for McCain as a protest vote.  That's how democracy works.

The Dem party has now been hijacked by an intolerant and fascistic "leader" and followers--no different than what we have today with GWB.  We at PUMP want to take our party and country back from fanatics and thugs!    

Obama will lose in November without HRC's vast coalition of voters.

by trixta 2008-06-16 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

You at PUMP?

by jere7my 2008-06-16 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

Oh, quit it with the African American already.  Everyone knows you really want to just stomp your foot and whine at those blacks for supporting that unelectable black male, or whatever it is you people say when no one else is around....

Sprays you with reality hose.

by lollydee 2008-06-17 03:10AM | 0 recs
Go.To.

Hell.

by JDF 2008-06-17 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

So Obama's a fascist, but McCain -- running for Bush's third term -- is just fine with you?  That makes no sense at all.

by writerswrite 2008-06-17 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

You want to take the country back from fanatics and thugs by voting for someone who has voted with GWB 95% of the time? Say what?

As the diarist says, "Hillary cares about this nation more than her own personal ambitions, so she's supporting Barack Obama for President in order to make our dreams into reality."

Bless you, HRC.

by blue jersey mom 2008-06-17 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

Excuse me.  What African Americans threatened to "riot" if Obama didn't get the nomination?  The only person I remember being quoted as talking about blacks rioting was Rush Limbaugh.  

by oldbattleaxe 2008-06-17 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

Trixta = Fail

Back under the bridge, racist.

by Rationalisto 2008-06-17 08:58AM | 0 recs
Pretty soon those five will be all Larry

has left. Check out his Alexa numbers. Ever since he shot blanks on the Michelle Obama tape NQ is sinking. like. a. stone.

by 79blondini 2008-06-16 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty soon those five will be all Larry

Sad that. But hey, public breakdowns are never pretty.

by Lettuce 2008-06-16 03:49PM | 0 recs
Awe

And after all that money they spent on getting a stack of servers to dish the smears.

To the diarist...

Great diary.

Could you please repost this in the comments section at a couple of puma/Hillary blogs.

IMO we need to see Hillary supporters take the lead in dialing back the rhetoric that was used in the last days of the campaign trying to save and flip super Ds.

For example, the RBC didn't 'steal' any of Hillary's delegates.

Donna Brazile didn't say she would resign if the super Ds decided the nomination. She said she would would quit the party if the super Ds over turned the voters.

The will of the voters isn't a popular vote it is delegates won.

There is no popular vote. Period.

Saying Hillary won more votes is at best SPIN, at worst a purposely deceitful attempt to manipulate voters.

Moving the DNC to Chicago is NOT proof of a coup.

William Ayers is a respected member of the progressive community and faculty member at a prestigious University.

Experience is subjective. Hillary is NOT more qualified. And Obama is NOT unqualified.

Calling Barack 'Barky' which rhymes with Darky IS racist.

Calling Obama and his campaign officials a group of monkeys IS racist.

I know you and Hillary can't and shouldn't be held accountable for this trash, but you and her loyal supporters could really give us a hand fighting these assholes

by Is This Snark 2008-06-16 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

atdnext and I both blog at Clintonistas for Obama.  If you visit our website, you'll see that we have been working hard to make the case that McCain does not share Hillary's values and that Clinton supporters should not vote for him.

Speaking only for myself, I will openly disagree with something that I think is crap, and I don't think that everything you wrote is crap.  

Something Obama people could do to help us Clinton people who are trying to reach out to Clinton supporters who are still undecided or opposing Obama is to stop (and I'm not saying that you do this), but please stop telling us to "get over it."  Please also stop telling us that the sexism we perceived--which I don't believe cost her the election--was in our heads.  Please also stop using the word "dead-enders."  I think that there are a lot more voters out there ready to support Obama, but they won't if his supporters give them an excuse not to.

by psychodrew 2008-06-16 05:05PM | 0 recs
I agree

Thanks for your work on that site.

What I'm asking for is Clinton supporters like you to directly confront the attacks at their sources.

Dairying here under your recognized Clinton supporting usernames, then cross-posting with links to the comments sections of the attack sites will help us avoid the standard taunt that we never supported Hillary and don't have her best interests at heart.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-16 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

You're probably right.  Maybe we should be going to NoQuarter and the others and arguing more.

I will seriously consider this.

by psychodrew 2008-06-16 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

I have to say, I don't think you should be treating sites like No Quarter as though they are anything but propaganda sites.  Fight them on your own terms, not on theirs.  Don't use their forums to spread your message.  Make them irrelevant.

by juliewolf 2008-06-17 02:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

How do you think the Clintonistas supporting Obama can be effective?

by psychodrew 2008-06-17 03:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

I think that numbers are good: really good.  

People with Clinton signs at Obama rallies, with Obama stickers on them are a good thing.  Pushing back in the media (not on No Quarter but in the real media) is good: whenever you see some stupid report about how Clinton supporters might not be interested in Obama, send a letter that says something along the lines of "I may have preferred Clinton to Obama, but I'm not enough a f---ing moron to support McCain" (though perhaps clean it up a bit).  When you write these letters, mention that McCain is anti-abortion in a major way.

I'd write more, but I gotta get to work while I still have a job :)

by juliewolf 2008-06-17 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

"Clinton supporting  usernames"?  

Wow, that's an ID I don't have. Where do I get one of those?  ; )

by shellius 2008-06-17 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

Clintonistas for Obama is not a blog by Hillary supporters. It is paid for and created by the Obama campaign.

Brain washed Obama Cult followes assume we are all stupid. They are wrong.

They are in for the shock of their lives in November.

by DonB11 2008-06-16 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

Please read my other diaries here at MyDD.  I was hard on Obama.  Read what I wrote yesterday about MSNBC.  Some of the Obama people were calling me a dead-ender.  

Clintonistas for Obama was created by atdnext, an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter.  He put blood, sweat, and tears into her campaign.

by psychodrew 2008-06-16 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

I wish you would try to convince me instead of insulting me. This isn't how you win support - it's how you will win yourself enemies.

by Falsehood 2008-06-16 07:30PM | 0 recs
Get back under

whatever bridge you came out of.

by JDF 2008-06-17 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

Stop this charade.

You are not a Clintonista. You are a paid Obama blogger. You are not fooling anyone.

by DonB11 2008-06-16 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

TRed for unsubstantiated accusations.  Provide evidence and it will be removed.

I'm not holding my breath waiting, though...

by mistersite 2008-06-16 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

Please also stop telling us that the sexism we perceived--which I don't believe cost her the election--was in our heads.

Let me say as someone who was an Edwards supporter until South Carolina and then an Obama supporter, I saw quite a bit of sexism directed toward Clinton and her supporters from the media and from some Obama supporters.

It was there, it was real, and it is a problem.

by ces 2008-06-16 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

Yeah - TPM has a nice compilation of the unsubstantiated crap she got. Chris Matthews should have really been suspended, or at least come out openly for Obama.

Mind you, I personally feel she went more out of bounds, but that issue's behind us.

by Falsehood 2008-06-16 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

Of course sexism is a problem. It's a bigger problem that people saying obnoxious things about someone else's candidate.

The dominant ideology of Western civilization is essentially sexist, racist, and hetero-centric. Much of our language is embedded with these values. For example, gender-based perjoratives are extremely common, and tilted much more heavily against women than men. Rooted in a deep-seated anxiety and ambivalence toward sex, a lot of these epithets tend to be sexual, in order to mitigate its power. It appears to me that misogyny is culturally hard-wired into the language itself.

I find similar dynamics occurring in regard to race, class, and sexual orientation. It's pretty obvious that white bourgeois heterosexual males are privileged in our society in both practical terms and also in terms of the language we use with one another.

This isn't just a media thing, or a political thing, or a product of just this election season, or these candidates or that candidate's supporters.

It's a longstanding problem, a big problem, and it's not going away until we start addressing some of the fundamental values on which our society is structured, and the terms we use to communicate.

by BobzCat 2008-06-16 08:25PM | 0 recs
I agree...

... there was obviously sexism in the media and there was of course occasional bad behavior by candidates' supporters (on both sides).  It boggles my mind, however, that some people heap the blame for that onto Obama's shoulders.  He can't control the media or his low level supports any more than Clinton or any other candidate can.  Cinton supporters have plenty to be mad about, but I don't see how Obama deserves to be the primary focus of that.  Be mad at the Republicans, the media, heck even the DNC and their crazy primary rules... but lets not blame Obama just for running a tough, smart campaign according to the rules.

Peace

by protothad 2008-06-16 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

You don't know what you're talking about.

"Donna Brazile didn't say she would resign if the super Ds decided the nomination. She said she would would quit the party if the super Ds over turned the voters."

The super Ds did decide the election as neither candidate got enough pledged delegates on their own. That's how the rules are set up.
"The will of the voters isn't a popular vote it is delegates won."

"There is no popular vote. Period."

Delegates do not necessarily represent the will of the people because of the arbitrary allocation system. The popular vote is the ONLY way to know what the will of the people is. No one knows EXACTLY what the popular vote was in the caucuses but a good estimate can be determined. The caucuses are not democratic because very few people can participate and the voting isn't private.

FACT: More people cast their vote in the primary for Hillary Clinton then anyone in the history of the U.S., Democrat or Republican. ALL of the votes were certified and are official.

But so what, the primary is over and Obama was handed the nomination by the SD's. What are you complaining about, your side "won"?

The Republicans are about as popular as colon cancer and they are running a corpse for president. So, why is Obama, the transformational leader only tied with McCain in head-to-head polls? He has received no bounce despite his clinching the nomination. Let me help you out: he is perhaps the weakest candidate we've ever run.

I happen to like most of everything he says he wants to do. I wanted him in the WH for 16 years. I just didn't think it was such a good idea to run him at the top of the ticket so soon.

You can spin experience any way you want but many voters won't buy it. They view him as too inexperienced. He only has 3 years national experience and two of those years was running for president. He has even less international experience.

Good Luck!

by mmorang 2008-06-16 06:33PM | 0 recs
See this is want I'm talking about

What you just posted is SPIN from a desperate campaign justifying its existence. She is no longer trying to convince supper D's so the Spin has to stop.

Donna Brazile said she would resign if the Super Ds OVERTURNED the will of the people.

Since there is no popular vote the will of the people is the delegate process. You disagreeing with the acuracy of the aportionment vs will of the people that's up to you.

But you can't pretend Donna said anything else, and claim she has somehow gone against her word.

Hillary ran an historic campaign without these EMBELLISHMENTS and outright falsehoods used to prop her up.

Do you get it?

Express all the doubt you want, but please don't spread misinformation, and spin.

It only hurts Hillary at this point.

Do you think people were angry at Terry Mac's intro because he spoke the truth?

No, Sorry. The anger came when he lied about our nominee on the night he clinched the delegates.

You are now doing it weeks later.

She lost fair and square.

If making that point firmly each time to suggest otherwise will drive you away, so be it.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-16 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: See this is want I'm talking about

The spam your seeing there is spin from the PUMA crowd or, more likely, its republican enablers.

Sen. Clinton has suspended her campaign, and is backing Obama.

I don't know what this site plans to do about PUMA trolls. Jerome really should lay down some guidelines.

by BobzCat 2008-06-16 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

I don't like your spin, but I really don't like how you ignore facts. No bounce? Show me where that is in the data. Compare polls in AR, NY, MA, and others to see.

by Falsehood 2008-06-16 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

Even if we excepted their argument that Obama was a weak candidate (he isn't), how does that translate into an argument to vote for McCain.  Gee, the progressive guy that supports almost all the same stuff as Clinton is polling a bit lower than I like... so I guess I'll instead vote for the guy that has promised to continue all of Bush's worst policies.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.  /snark

What motivates someone to think that way?  Were they so caught up in the passions of the primary that they could demonize the opposition (even a fellow progressive Democrat) to that level of irrational hatred?  Are they so desperate to be correct about the 'electability' argument that they are willing to sell out the country to the neocons rather than eat crow on that one point?  How does a self proclaimed Clinton supporter get to that place where they will willingly throw their support to the party and candidate that stands at 180 degrees to everything Hillary herself has fought for her entire life?

I doubt most of these people were ever really Democrats or even Clinton supporters.  I am sure some are... but I just can't believe very many of my fellow progressives would be so short-sighted.

by protothad 2008-06-16 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

You are very cheeky and arrogant, my friend, to ask for our help after the way you Obamatans attacked HRC and her supporters throughout the primary season.  We owe you nothing!

by trixta 2008-06-16 08:49PM | 0 recs
What about Hillary?

by Is This Snark 2008-06-16 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: What about Hillary?

It's obvious, isn't it? Her opinion on who to vote for don't count among her supporters

by fbihop 2008-06-16 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Awe

It has nothing to do with what you 'owe' obama supporters.  Indeed, if you are making your candidate decisions based on the behavior of anonymous supporters on a blog... well, I'll just politely suggest there are much better criteria for making such an important decision.

You owe it to yourself, your family, your fellow Americans, to strip away the emotional fog of the primary season and examine the candidates on their own merits.  I suggest you look at their voting records, their campaign finance reports, and their stated platforms.  VoteSmart.org is a good place to start.  I think you find the contrast between Obama and McCain to be rather stark.  It is quite clear which one will stand up for the progressive ideals of Hillary Clinton and which one will continue down the path of Bush and the neocons.

Peace

by protothad 2008-06-16 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty soon those five will be all Larry

I think Larry deserves to sink like a stone... Front page of noquarter tonight... Tom Freakin' "DDT is as safe as aspirin" Delay.

Can we not all agree, if we can agree on nothing else, that quoting Tom Delay on anything is not something a progressive website should ever do?

by JenKinFLA 2008-06-16 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty soon those five will be all Larry

Not so.    Speak from facts.

by trixta 2008-06-16 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

you will get nothing but mojo and kudos from me.. as well as a rec.

I was always sort of amazed that referring to Donna Brazille and Michelle Obama by both misogynistic and racist terms was treated as normal by posters who decried the misogynistic treatment of Clinton... it was like turnabout is fair play in some alternate universe.

Beyond that, PUMA... a majestic animal... a decent shoe company... that's about it.

by JenKinFLA 2008-06-16 01:45PM | 0 recs
If there was a best comments list

I would nominate yours.  Loved it.

by GFORD 2008-06-16 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: If there was a best comments list

Thanks....

I love the sig line btw...

by JenKinFLA 2008-06-16 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

I was always sort of amazed that referring to Donna Brazille and Michelle Obama by both misogynistic and racist terms was treated as normal by posters who decried the misogynistic treatment of Clinton... it was like turnabout is fair play in some alternate universe.

You're missing the point.  It's totally unacceptable to treat an accomplished white woman in a misogynistic fashion, but treating a black woman badly?  That's just what they deserve.

(yes, this is snark).

by juliewolf 2008-06-17 02:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions?

oh this one gets an instant rec.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 02:31AM | 0 recs
Baloney

This has very little to do with Clinton as a person or a candidate. Clinton is not the holy grail for all who supported clinton. The whole point is not clinton or nothing. It is: is Obama qualified to lead and run the country and make the critical decisions that may need to be taken at any time? So far his supporters have shopped around only two supposed qualifications, since he has absolutely not articulated/advocated for anything long enough in his public life other than his own candidacy for higher offices. 1. His editor in chief of HLR 2. His successful campaign. I would give much credit to Axelrod for 2 although candidate does deserve some credit. But if that is a good criteria for voting for a president, we should have all voted for Bush in 2000/2004.

Dont insult our intelligence and list his policy prescriptions from his website. Every candidate worth the salt will have to have policy positions. That doesnt make them a leader. This guy after getting elected and going to both IL senate and US senate has done nothing to show that he is a leader. He was a mediocre senator in IL until Emil Jones did him favors in the last 2 yrs of his senate stay, just so he could run for US senate. In the US senate he has taken no leadership position on Iraq or censure motion or anything else, like Feingold did or Kucinich did in the house. Fine. Has he at least successfully or unsuccessfully  led on some democratic/progressive holy grail such as UHC or environment or GLBT rights/marriage or anything else that I can think of. At a minimum he hasnt even risked his own political neck and stood for some progressive priority even if he didnt ultimately succeed on that. That way showing that he actually can lead and advocate and expect him to succeed at a future point in time. He hasnt done any such thing. The only worthwhile thing his supporters cling to is his Editor in Chief at HLR. And if you go look at what he did in HLR, apparently he didnt even publish one article in HLR as EIC. There certainly is no scholarly article that google scholar search shows up for him on law as HLR chief or not. And somebody put together a case comparing 20 years of HLR citations and showed that the year he was EIC for is the lowest cited in 20 years. So even there his leadership is in serious question. Just show us where he fought hard and led and what causes for other than his own elections.

By comparision, whether we agree with McCain's policies or not, the man is most qualified to be run the country and be the leader of this country. Yes, it bothers me to vote for him (and probably why I may not vote for him) when you consider SCOTUS appointments or other such things that have long term impacts. However I would rather elect a dem congress which can put a roadblock on these things to a repub president than elect someone who has shown absolutely no leadership qualities in all his public life or even private life. His private career is completely unremarkable. He hasnt argued key legal cases or made key legal arguments as part of a team either that show his legal leadership.

At the end of the day party loyalty is not the holy grail. Think about it. If only some of the repubs who didnt think Bush was a good leader were not loyal to the repub party and crossed parties and voted for Al Gore we wouldnt have had the diasaster we had for 7 years.  loyalty to the country and to have a good leader for the country is the holy grail. Obama simply doesnt meet these standards. It would be another presidency fully dependent on advisors and the cabinet rather than the president's leadership and judgement.

Pary loyalty my ass, Party unity my ass indeed!!

by pdxarch 2008-06-17 10:47AM | 0 recs
How long will it take for somebody on this diary

to defend or slightly approve of PUMA and what it stands for?

My money is on kosnomore.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-16 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

I can't wait for someone to defend the talented PUMA spokespeople.

I love how they thought that Fox was fair to HRC and would be fair to them.

Damn, Neil Cavuto is still in the top ten of worst people ever, but he does his job well here.

He takes very weak minded "democrats" and turns them against each other and inside out.

God to love American TV,  the best medium for making small people looks smaller.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

The comedy starts at the 1:35 mark.

Thanks Neil, now please stay on FBN, you are in your element.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

I don't know if this Neil guy is one of the 10 top worst people ever, but that was a great interview!

by french imp 2008-06-16 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

No, Neil Cavuto is one of the world top ten worst people.

When people say Fox pushes lies as news, he is the main culprit along with Brit Hume as they pretend to do the "news hours" on Fox.

But look, he did what they do best and haven't had the opportunity in years to do,  make weak democrats look weaker by turning themselves against each other and their own words.

Neil played this idiots like a old western saloon piany.

Its almost so perfect you think it might be staged with actors.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

Yes, indeed he played mice and cat with them.
With the PUMAs playing the part of the mice...

However he did prove that those folks were insignificant, in other words, in no position to weaken the democratic nominee. Or did I miss some subtlety here?

by french imp 2008-06-16 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

When they said they have 18 million supporters and Cavuto said, but you can't have that many on a conference call,and the woman said there were 50 - Cavuto said:
"18 million, 50" rather snidely.

Talk about the little air they had in their ballots rapidly escaping....

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

Here is a person, that maybe worse than Neil Cavuto.

Man what a loser this women is, unless she is a paid comedian like Rush or Billo than she has FAILED life on a massive scale.

Raise your seats to upright position.
Raise barf bags to mouth.
Pay attention from 3:30 mark, and remember than whenever some troll says "ugh, its obvious you don't want unity with talk like that"

WHY HASN'T THE BLOGOSPHERE CALLED DIANE OUT, SHE IS THE MONEY BEHIND THE WEBSITES

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

She should be ignored (and shunned).  She isn't worth anyone's time and when every door is closed to her in the future in politics, perhaps she'll realize that.  

by PantsB 2008-06-16 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

She considers voting for McCain. She would not vote for a candidate less qualified than Hillary.

Ergo she thinks McCain is more qualified than Hillary.

Why did she ever support Hillary in the first place?

by french imp 2008-06-16 03:28PM | 0 recs
That was really pathetic

The 50 of them that made the call were probably 8 really confused people and 42 political operatives, including David Duke alumni. They didn't project power or movement or decisiveness or purpose - just sad inertia. Someone somewhere said it best and I'm sorry I don't recall who did. But Fox exists solely to piss me off if I happen to be walking by a TV set and Fox is on.

by Jeter 2008-06-16 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

Honestly if you watched that and didn't hear the voices just the expressions and mannerisms would tell you all you need to know - smarmy a-hole and empty headed robot.

by PantsB 2008-06-16 03:25PM | 0 recs
kosnomore has pledged to hold their

nose and cast their vote for Obama. Please don't associate them with PUMA

by bobdoleisevil 2008-06-16 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: How long will it take for somebody on this dia

Not me -- in my short and unfortunate relationship with PUMA, my determination is that they hate their country and they're all psychos.  

Obama supporters need to smack them down ASAP.  By smack them down, I mean with logic, facts and large bars of chocolate.

by shellius 2008-06-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Thank you

for posting this.

After seeing Larry Johnsons NAME at the TOP of http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/f ightthesmearshome/

It hits home that people on this site are defending someone trying to smear Obama with tactics of racism and religious bigotry and extremism.

It is time this WHOLE site takes a stand.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 01:46PM | 0 recs
And that's precisely what I'm doing...

I spoke out against the ugly media bias against Bill & Hillary Clinton, and I intend to do the same for Barack & Michelle Obama. NO DEMOCRAT should support the smearing of other Democrats.

by atdleft 2008-06-16 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: And that's precisely what I'm doing...

atdleft,

You've done a pretty impressive pivot in the last couple of weeks.  I can't even imagine how you did it.  

Big wad of Mojo for you.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-06-16 02:15PM | 0 recs
It was tough at first...

But when I got the email from Hillary's campaign on the night of June 4 explaining why she would be endorsing Obama that follwing Saturday, I knew she was doing this for the right reason. And when she decided to give Obama her full support, I decided I needed to do the same. I care too much about this nation to let John McBush screw it up any more than Bush & Cheney have.

Thanks.

by atdleft 2008-06-16 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: It was tough at first...

Thanks for being an example of how to deal with a major disappointment, and keep moving forward.

-Chris

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-06-16 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: And that's precisely what I'm doing...

You are a pretty awesome person.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: And that's precisely what I'm doing...

Please include Donna Brazile in this.

by Christy1947 2008-06-17 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

"It hits home that people on this site are defending someone trying to smear Obama with tactics of racism and religious bigotry and extremism.

It is time this WHOLE site takes a stand."

It's time Democrats and progressives all over the place, not just here, take a stand against the religious bigotry and racism against Obama. I found the sexism against Hillary horrible and now I see racism and bigoted comments about Obama everywhere and they are just as bad. We have to call them out when we see them or they will make all progressives/Democrats look bad.

That's why the Republicans are loving this so much. They have been accused of being racist for years and now the PUMA-types (certainly not all of them) are playing right into their hands.

by shellius 2008-06-16 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

"take a stand against the religious bigotry and racism against Obama."

Why?

He and his vicious wife are the worst bigots and racists in this campaign.

They have fanned the flames of bigotry and racism and milked it for their own political benefit.

I hope they are consumed by bigotry and racism in November.

You reap what you saw.

GOD DAMN AMERICA!!!! (Obama's spitirual advisor)

by DonB11 2008-06-16 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

TRed for accusing our nominee of being bigots and racists, with no evidence whatsoever.

Please comment respectfully or stop commenting.

by mistersite 2008-06-16 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

I think what we have here is a troll.

by Falsehood 2008-06-16 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

Amen!

by trixta 2008-06-16 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: You can dish it out, but you can't take it!

You Obamatans are a bunch of hypocrites!  You only acknowledge misogyny and sexism when it concerns Michelle.  After eviscerating HRC during the primaries with you vile hatred now you want us to stand up for BO's wife?  You've got to be kidding!   The Rebugs will go after her with the greatest zeal.  I say, let the media and the Repubs treat the Obamas the same way they've treated the Clintons throughout the years.  I call it poetic justice.

You can dish it out, but you can't take it!

by trixta 2008-06-16 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: You can dish it out, but you can't take it!

Well, nobody could accuse you of having principles.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 01:48AM | 0 recs
Re: You can dish it out, but you can't take it!

looks like yours are very "situational"

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You can dish it out, but you can't take it!

If racism is wrong in one case, it's wrong in all cases.  If misogyny is wrong in one case, it's wrong in all cases.

Right?

by Jess81 2008-06-17 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: You can dish it out, but you can't take it!

nice words, to bad you don't live up to them.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-17 05:08PM | 0 recs
The two groups of people who annoy me the most:

1)  The PUMA nitwits; and

2)  Obama supporters who STILL feel compelled to bash Clinton.  

I can't decide which is more annoying.  Probably (2) just because they have no reason to be upset and bitter about the primary process.

by Geekesque 2008-06-16 01:55PM | 0 recs
Geekesque!

Long time, no see. I'm so glad we're on the same side again. And yes, I agree about both groups annoying me. Don't they realize they're only helping the CReeps by continuing to sow division and spite among us?

by atdleft 2008-06-16 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Geekesque!

Especially the Obama supporters.  The more they bash Obama, the LESS likely it is that he'll win.

I can handle my enemies, but God save me from my friends.

by Geekesque 2008-06-16 02:04PM | 0 recs
"The more they bash CLINTON" that is.

Two posts in, and I'm already issuing errata.

by Geekesque 2008-06-16 02:12PM | 0 recs
That's OK...

I type before I think far too often. We all make silly mistakes.

And btw, I can hardly wait for this infighting to end. And especially, I'd like to see the PUMAs stop denigrating Hillary's legacy by smearing Obama in her name.

by atdleft 2008-06-16 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: That's OK...

Healing takes time. It's only been a bit less than two weeks, after seventeen months. Some folks heal in quiet. Some need to sacrifice a wastebasket or two first to get it out and out of their systems. (I'm with the wastebasket crowd when it's my turn)  If we're still doing this in early July, it's something to worry about.

If you have noticed, there is cumulatively a bit more discernment already visible in the who did what category, which is in itself a healing sign.

by Christy1947 2008-06-17 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: The two groups of people who annoy me the most

To be fair, I think (1) has been aggrevating the hell out of (2). But I agree (2) should be calm enough not to let (1)'s crap get to it.

by Rictor Rockets 2008-06-16 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The two groups of people who annoy me the most

They are equally annoying.  

Maybe everyone needs to get their sense of humor back.  

by shellius 2008-06-17 01:45PM | 0 recs
Great diary! Rec'd.

We need to push back against these people as much as possible.

by psychodrew 2008-06-16 01:55PM | 0 recs
Thanks, Drew!

I fully agree, and I intend to push back... Forr Hillary's sake AND for Barack's sake. :-)

by atdleft 2008-06-16 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

I think we have to understand that the PUMA people are a little bit like children.  They're basically throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their way.  I don't understand adults behaving this way, when there is a Democrat that their first choice has enthusiastically endorsed. She didn't do it under duress or threat, she did it of her own free will.

I say this as a supporter of Hillary -- which is why I'm now supporting Obama.  She endorsed him. I spent about five minutes being depressed after she gave her endorsement speech, and then I vowed to help her carry out her mission to get him elected for the good of the country.

Maybe the PUMA people just need to get it out of their systems and heal. Unfortunately, I think some of them are hell-bent on some type of vendetta.  I wish they would reconsider and look at what they may be doing to this country if their wishes come true.  They need to stop and think instead of just emotionally react. In other words, please everyone, be grown-ups.

by shellius 2008-06-16 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive

"She didn't do it under duress or threat, she did it of her own free will."

It was a hostage video. The DNC was holding a gun to her head.

We've seen this before. When Reagan endorsed For in 1976.

I bet both Bill and Hillary will be voting for McCain in the privacy of the voting booth. They love their country and they don't want to trust it to a fool who is totally unqualified for the job.

by DonB11 2008-06-16 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

Think 'fifteen minutes of notoriety" when you say PUMA. All fifty of them got on Fox that fast. For them, that's what it's about, them, not HRC at all and certainly not those many who supported her and are now lying wounded for awhile. It's not PUMA I'm concerned for, it's the larger number not trying to manipulate a difficult situation for personal benefit.

by Christy1947 2008-06-17 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for a man who calls his wife a c***.  

I'm still upset that Hillary lost (even typing that makes me a little teary) but I can't fathom the leap it takes to come to the conclusion that the world must suffer for what she, and we, went through.

by HillarysDesire 2008-06-16 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

"I mean, haven't we all complained about the ugly, misogynistic treatment given to Hillary by the media elite? So why should we now cheer on the ugly, misogynistic treatment now given to Michelle Obama?"

Excellent point.
The rumors and some things being said about her by so-called "progressives" are just vile.

by shellius 2008-06-16 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive

"So why should we now cheer on the ugly, misogynistic treatment now given to Michelle Obama?"

Because she herself fanned the flames of racism and hatred against the Clintons?

I can't wait to watch the Right Wing Noise Machine shred her to pieces.

I will be sitting in front of my TV with a bucket of pop corn.

Mrs Obama is a hate filled racist woman and deserves what is coming to her.

by DonB11 2008-06-16 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

This sure makes it hard for Obama to make Hillary VP.

Makes it impossible imo.  He's be seen as weak, succumbing to pressure from dingbats.

by wrb 2008-06-16 02:20PM | 0 recs
Note

Being an alumni of a college with a Cougar aka Mountain Lion aka Puma as the mascot I am shamed by their choice of that as their mascot.

In a sense they remind of Verruca Salts (from Charlie in the Chocolate Factory) as they want their way and now.

If Hillary had done better in February I'd be in the position you are now in cheer-leading and getting people lined up behind the nominee.

As I said to sricki yesterday (only I am going to try to get the gender of the nouns and possessives right):

Tu es un crédit à Sen. Clinton êtes sa candidature historique.  Cet homme effectue le travail énorme

(basically:  you are a credit to Sen. Clinton's historic campaign. This guy does wonderful work. )

by Student Guy 2008-06-16 02:23PM | 0 recs
Thank you, SG...

That's a real honor coming from YOU. And btw, I'm glad to see you back on MyDD. You're one of the reasons I'm so glad to be back here. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-06-16 02:28PM | 0 recs
Thank you, atdleft!

Great diary.

So why should we now cheer on the ugly, misogynistic treatment now given to Michelle Obama?

An excellent point. And she's being attacked on two fronts -- her sex and the color of her skin. I was eating dinner with my parents a few nights ago, and there's no way to escape Faux News in their house. Two or three assholes pundits/reporters/whatevers were trashing Michelle. They kept calling her, "Just another angry black woman." No joke. I meant to write a diary about it, but I didn't have the clip from whichever show it was.

by sricki 2008-06-16 02:23PM | 0 recs
I know, it's disgusting...

Whenever my dad flips Faux News on in the living room while I'm present, I politely ask him to change the channel. They're so revolting in their sexist AND racist smears of Michelle Obama. I simply  can't stomach their BS about Barack and Michelle.

by atdleft 2008-06-16 02:30PM | 0 recs
Sadly, I'm pretty used to Faux.

Every now and then, I can get my parents to watch CNN (if I get to the TV control first), but my dad calls it the "Clinton News Network". So I'm often stuck watching GOP propaganda (part of the reason I don't stay over at their house for too long). I've learned to tune most of it out, but phrases like "angry black woman," frequently manage to jerk me out of my stupor. My mom likes KO and used to watch it with me, but of course, I haven't watched him in awhile.

by sricki 2008-06-16 02:41PM | 0 recs
Oh, and I have to ask,

has alegre joined PUMA? Please tell me she hasn't.

by sricki 2008-06-16 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, and I have to ask,

I couldn't say - but she's taken to referring to the Democratic nominee as "Bam Bam" so um... I'd say she isn't a big believer in party unity.

by Virginia Liberal 2008-06-17 10:13AM | 0 recs
"Bam Bam"?

What does that even mean? Isn't that the kid from the The Flintstones?

by sricki 2008-06-17 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: "Bam Bam"?

Hey - well - I'm not the person to ask.   But the rest of the diary was not flattering, so I'm assuming it isn't meant to be a kind nickname.

by Virginia Liberal 2008-06-17 11:00AM | 0 recs
Where was your outrage while the same

attacks were hurled at Clinton? Today's booing by the Obamaniacs, at Gore's endorsement rally, was a real unification gesture!

As to his progressive ideals, he's just shot them all to hell by appointing two leading apologists for jobs offshoring as his economic advisors--Robert Rubin and Rubin associate Jason Furman.  These two are notorious for their justifications of policies that benefit Wall Street, CEOs, and large retailers at the expense of the economic well being and careers of millions of Americans.

He's such a hypocrite!  

by suzieg 2008-06-16 11:27PM | 0 recs
The Puma mascot:

by spunkmeyer 2008-06-16 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Puma mascot:

There are no keys on this keyboard to express how hard I laughed at that.

If you are young enough to get it, and you saw the video upthread it is maybe the joke of the week!

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The Puma mascot:

That was a good video, thanks for posting that,  by the way.

by skohayes 2008-06-16 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Hillary
Frankly, I think they've gone way over the line, but I thought there were strong indications of insanity in some "Hillary supporting" groups back during the primaries. Those two in that Cavuto piece were a little scary, frankly. "ANGRY? I'M NOT ANGRY!"
Does anyone think Hillary should say something?
 
by skohayes 2008-06-16 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Hillary

I think Clinton will say a lot by DOING, by campaigning with and for Obama.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

Apparently French is now the official language of mydd - thank you SG!

Les deux petits PUMAs de l'interview avaient l'air de chatons égarés, loin de leur mère. On aurait bien eu envie les consoler, mais on redoutait un coup de griffe.

by french imp 2008-06-16 02:41PM | 0 recs
Oui

Très drôle mon ami français, très bon usage de la langue et les doubles significations en dedans.

(as always my grammar sucks and I am very literal in my translations)

by Student Guy 2008-06-16 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Oui

Waytago ya Libs!

Yall want some Pinot Noir and commie cheese to go with that?

hehe,  I love how conservatives hate the french :P

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 03:20PM | 0 recs
I am not French

I live in the City of Lakes right now, I took two years of French in high school and I had a great grasp of vocab but a pitiful knowledge of feminine vs masculine usage and gammar.

Being out of practice I tend to go literal with any translations I do.

by Student Guy 2008-06-16 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Oui

You're doing pretty well. I'm trying to ressucitate my spanish these days; I read novels in spanish. It works, and it's fun.

Si se puede!

Oui, nous pouvons!

Possumus!

by french imp 2008-06-16 03:43PM | 0 recs
Je vous en supplie, arretez d'utiliser les

sites gratuits de traduction. Ils sont tous pourris! Leurs phrases sont affreuses... on a peine a comprendre ce que vous voulez nous dire.

Pour tous ceux qui respectent cette superbe langue, c'est vraiment tres agacant! Alors, faites-nous une faveur et taisez-vous!

by suzieg 2008-06-17 12:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Je vous en supplie, arretez d'utiliser les

Quel site gratuit de traduction utilisez-vous? Le resultat est parfait!

by french imp 2008-06-17 02:51AM | 0 recs
En passant,

il ya des touches de raccourci pour les accents et cédilles, même si vous n'avez pas de clavier français :

é = alt-130
à = alt-133
É = alt-144
ô = alt-147
ù = alt-151
ç = alt-135

etc.  Ainsi, vous pourrez avoir l'air de vrais singes perdants mangeurs de fromage.

by corph 2008-06-17 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: En passant,

J'apprécie particulièrement l'espace devant les deux points : je vois que j'ai affaire à un fin connaisseur... voire même, à un authentique 'singe perdant mangeur de fromage'.

by french imp 2008-06-17 02:08PM | 0 recs
Je me suis fait reprendre

tellement souvent par des réviseurs pédants dans mes rapports que j'ai dû mémoriser chaque petite règle de ponctuation.

by corph 2008-06-19 02:50AM | 0 recs
Re: En passant,

I don't speak French, but I know crazy talk.  You need a Mac.  ;-)

é = option+e, e
É = option+e, E
à = option+`, a
ù = option+`, u
ô = option+i, o
ç = option+c

etc.  It's easy enough that I can figure out the accents off the top of my head even though I don't use them very often.  Plus it's not too hard to customize your keyboard layout to use whatever shortcuts make sense to you.

by Blue Tomorrow 2008-06-17 02:25PM | 0 recs
Not exactly PUMA, I don't think

A very prominent former mydd-er is holding on for an eventual Clinton nomination -- not for vp, but for president.

I'm not ready to stop fighting for Hillary's shot at the nomination and I know a lot of other folks haven't given up the fight either.

The fight for Hillary continues folks.  And with the help of a few good friends as regular front-pagers and contributors here, we could help turn enough of those super delegates - convince them to line up behind the one candidate who actually has a shot at beating John McCain in the general election.
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 02:48PM | 0 recs
Please, politics...

Let's not start anything on Alegre. I definitely don't agree with what's she's doing now, but I'm still holding out hope that she'll ultimately do the right thing. Let's just not get into another discussion on Alegre.

Thanks.

by atdleft 2008-06-16 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Please, politics...

I just find it sad that she continues to be so delusional that she thinks Clinton can still get the nomination, that the superdelegates might change their minds.  

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Please, politics...

Thanks for making your point much more tactfully than my Alegre call out diary the other night, atdleft.

I'm frustrated that some long-time Democrats are bashing the party and its presumptive nominee -- even hoping for some scandal or event to forestall his nomination.

But you managed to express your frustration without naming names or singling anyone out.

I'm taking notes.

by jdusek 2008-06-16 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Not exactly PUMA, I don't think

A lot of familair names posting over there. Most of her rec "gang," at least.

I'm convinced at this point that no1/4 and H44 are simply right-wing performance art, amusing themselves with the knowledge that they're able to fool the occasional unhinged Clinton supporter into believing them.

The PUMAs, meanwhile, with which alegre and the other usual suspects are now clearly aligned, are probably just a relative handful of bloggers, posting at multiple sites, desperately trying to convince the media and themselves of their relevance.

They've so thoroughly constructed their own realities that they're pretty much impervious to reason. They've probably convinced themselves that they're speaking for a higher cause. But we all know they're just speaking to themselves, for themselves. Come September, I half expect them to start promoting their own party, the America-for-Hillary Party, thinking they can pull a Lieberman.

But I hope Sen. Clinton smacks this stuff down long before that. Let them have their fantasies for a few more weeks, maybe, but then she needs to put these people down loud and clear, and state unequivocably that they do not speak for her or in her interest.

by BobzCat 2008-06-16 03:21PM | 0 recs
Lost causes

Asking the PUMA idiots to "stop and think" is a waste of time. It's just not possible.

Like Rachel Maddow might have put it, they're in a "post-rational" universe" inside of which they've constructed an alternate reality. It's all so clear to them. They are unreachable.

The only worry is how much press play they can manage to drum up in order to make their insignificant numbers seem somehow influential. If the media hosts invite them on their shows, I hope they do their research, challenge them, and not let them get away with talking points and blanket accusations. I hope they report the facts instead of just giving these fools an open megaphone to propagate their bullshit, like they did for the swiftboaters.

Since that kind of journalism is in short supply, it's important for the blogs to determine who these people are, what their backgrounds are and who is supporting them behind the scenes. And keep the pressure on the MSM to respond appropriately.

by BobzCat 2008-06-16 02:50PM | 0 recs
I hope they're all not "lost causes"...

And I'm willing to do some work to actually make sure they don't convince any more Hillary supporters to follow their lead.

After all...

http://clintonistasforobama.blogspot.com

That's why I created this blog. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-06-16 02:54PM | 0 recs
I think they are, unfortunately

The ones promoting disunity and publicly advocating for John McCain are most certainly lost causes; as are, to a lesser degree, those pushing for a floor fight. I'm not sure you can invest that much into an irrational world view and eventually reconcile that with reality down the road. There's a lot of self-image wrapped up in it.

But you're right, there are also many susceptible people out there who are being fed this poison, and are currently merely under its influence. And they need to get the truth, so what you're doing is great.

I do think, though, if this group and ones like it start getting more play in the media, it's Sen. Clinton's responsibility to publicly put the kibosh on it. Some of these people are her creations, "true believers" who identified so completely with her that they find it impossible to separate. They need to be spoken to directly, and in no uncertain terms.

by BobzCat 2008-06-16 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're

These blogs are are all shams. Paid for and created by the Obama campaign.

They think we are all stupid. It is like all the bloggers he has bribed to post on Internet sites.

by DonB11 2008-06-16 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're

Yet another paid Obama blogger posing as a Clintonista.

Nobody is buying your act. Give it up.

by DonB11 2008-06-16 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I hope they're

TRed for more unsubstantiated accusations.

Most of your comments on this diary seem to be sheer trollery.  Perhaps if you're so actively opposed to our nominee, myDD (a Democratic blog) isn't the best place for you.

by mistersite 2008-06-16 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

As one who isn't a PUMA, but sympathizes with their grievances, their reactions are partly the result of the "sharp elbows" style of primary campaigning of the online Obama community.  

Youth, enthusiasm for a candidate and the relative anonymity of internet political activism that resulted in some very nasty, brutal, personal attacks targeted not just at Clinton, but also her supporters.  Clinton supporters were not only locked out of many political forums, they were stalked elsewhere and attacked with a vengeance, often in vulgar, graphic terms and accused of being racists. Dems turned against Dems as if they were enemies. In my years of activism, I've never seen anything like it.  

Add to that a coordinated effort by the DNC and Obama campaign to silence and diminish the base of Dem women activists and their poor job of bridge-building once Clinton conceded and you have a large group of Dems who aren't willing to forgive and forget.  

Outside of a vocal few, most aren't planning to vote for McCain.  They do plan to teach the Obama campaign and the DNC that the party can't survive when it sytematically treats so many of its own members so badly.  

They're not just upset with the way Clinton was treated. They're upset with the way they, as long time Dem activists, were treated.  You can't attack, purge and invalidate large sections of the party base during a contentious primary, then command them to shut up and fall in line.

by Betsy McCall 2008-06-16 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

WTF are you talking about?

Sharp elbows?

If you can't take a "sharp elbow" what are you doing in politics?

If a "sharp elbow" is enough to make you vote for a war mongerer you need drugs, professional help, and you need to take 3 steps back from that voting booth.

I am sorry, there is no exuse for this terrible woman (one of the "architects")  

In this video she says McCain is better qualified than Hillary:

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

Yuck.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

the 3:30 mark is telling

this was the women that got caught trying to hide she was the owner of all the obama hate sites.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 03:15PM | 0 recs
yes it was

diane matavoulous or whatever her name is.

by annatopia 2008-06-17 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

I'm not referring to this woman.  I'm referring to the legions of Clinton supporters who you should stop attacking if you want them to help Obama win.

And "sharp elbows" is a very polite term for being called a racist, stupid bitch, whore, idiot, crackhead, and a multitude of other names and accusations I won't repeat here. That may be ok for you, but believe me, its not ok for primary politics.

Go back and re-read my post.  These people will vote for Obama, however they're not likely to campaign or donate.  And some may just stay at home. Why?  Because they feel that any campaign willing to treat fellow Dems this way in the primary probably doesn't know how to win the GE.  And if by some miracle they do, they may not be any better than Republicans.

The perils of relying on the "youth" vote to help Obama win means he's represented by people who don't know what it means to act like a Democrat, to show kindness towards fellow Dems and behave in a mature and responsible way and make an effort to unify the party.  

Instead we're stuck with a bunch of immature hotheads who don't have the maturity for "bridge building" skills.  We have an insecure and paranoid candidate who insists on purging anyone from the party who doesn't worship him.

That's a formula for a lost election.

by Betsy McCall 2008-06-16 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

What are you talking about,  stay on this site for a while.

Unity has been in full swing now for a while.

I haven't seen any HRC supporters bashed.

You are making up stuff because it's fun to be in the minority.

So please stop making up victims were there are none.

For the record, any Hillary supporters on this site get bashed in the last 2 weeks and not have their "bashers" get TR'd off the site by Obama supporters.

Look Hillary Supports Obama, if you can't support him thats your problem.

I have ZERO worries about him destroying the last columns of the GOP power structure this fall.

If you want to sit there for the next 8 years knowing you voted against him, or any of your family or friends thats your problem.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-16 03:55PM | 0 recs
Not referring to MyDD

But I'm sure you can figure out which sites I am referring to.

Glad you have confidence in Obama.

by Betsy McCall 2008-06-16 04:52PM | 0 recs
definition of a cultist

Look it up, I mean all of us Obama supporters were smeared with that label back in December.  Or did you conveniently forget that trading insults is a two way street?

by Regenman 2008-06-16 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

His campaign elected not to call attention to it, but Barack Obama has been target of a very ugly underside of American society.

Obama campaign offices have been repeatedly vandalized and graffitied with racist slurs. Phone bankers and canvassers in some parts of the country had to endure some truly vicious behavior, including approaching threats. The candidate himself started receiving Secret Service protection far earlier than any other.

I've visited less-traveled blogs where the racist contempt is completely unleashed. I mean, it'll curl your hair, and make you think you're back in the 30s and 40s. And I can only guess what moderators have had to pull at countless other forums.

I'm sorry that Clinton has been called bad names. She's not alone.

It's an unfortunate comment on American culture that gender-based epithets are less shocking than racial ones in mainstream discourse, but it's also true that racially-based hatred and violence is alive and well in this country, and has simmered below the surface and largely away from the media spotlight throughout this campaign.

A lot of painful truths about our culture have emerged this year. Casting blame. demanding redress of our grievances, and accusing others of immaturity will not move us forward or help us to actually deal with any of these problems.

by BobzCat 2008-06-16 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

Yawn.

Whew!  I think my breath stinks!

by AK Democrat 2008-06-16 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

I think you are spot on that they're not so much upset about how HRC was treated than about how they feel they were treated.

This is all about bruised egos at this stage. Nothing to do with politics. They are mad at ... they don't exactly know who or what; as like as not they'll end up mad at Hillary.

I admire all the more the vast majority of Clinton supporters who took the high way.

by french imp 2008-06-16 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

"You can't attack, purge and invalidate large sections of the party base during a contentious primary, then command them to shut up and fall in line."

Obama cultist believe they can purge the working class from the Democratic party and win all 50 states with a coalition of african americans and limousine liberals.

by DonB11 2008-06-16 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

Thank you.

by feelfree 2008-06-16 05:42PM | 0 recs
3.4 million HRC voters for McCain (per NBC/WSJ)

Another 3.6 million undecided.

And that's out of the motivated active Democrats who participate in primaries and caucuses.

Looked at another way: Obama polled 47% among registered voters at large ... and 61% among Democratic primary voters who originally favored Hillary.

atdleft, Geek and others can't understand it, or pretend it's not there, or spin up bizarre explanations for it, or laugh it off and assume it will go away.

They're not operating from reality-based perspectives.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-16 06:16PM | 0 recs
RonK

In June of 2000 51% of Bradley's supporters said they would vote for Bush, there is a similar number for McCain from 2000.

Numbers later showed that the parties unified to a fairly large extent.

Please stop trying to push your fear mongering bullshit while pretending you care about "Unity" as in saying that some stuff doesn't feed the Unity Pony.

There can't be a unity pony with those who are unwilling to even make an effort for it.

You and your approximately 1000 readers over at the Confluence (guessing on that based on comments elsewhere as you were pushing the 1000 number over at PUMA PAC but weren't able to attain it with any rapidity), will likely have no effect on the general election.  Most people care about issues not personal melodrama.  Also I am guessing that the PUMA corporation wouldn't be too happy with you stealing their logo if you were a decent sized group.

Bisses,

Student Guy,

by Student Guy 2008-06-16 11:05PM | 0 recs
First, lose the arrogant, abusive attitude

If you thought there were only 1,000 of us you wouldn't bother ... and the 10 million you'll have to deal with eventually are creatures of your own making. You are reaping what you have sown.

Second, there were 4M Bradley voters in the 2000 nominating cycle -- a fringe of the Democratic base, and largely a centrist fringe who could be expected to wobble across party lines. Compare that to 18M Clinton Democrats in 2008, predominantly standard Democratic base voters.

Third, 28% of those ended up voting for Bush in November.

Fourth, those 28% of 4% proved more than sufficient to deny Gore the victory.

Fifth, your political memory probably provides no basis of comparison, but Obama has alienated Democratic voters in ways that are not typical, and may be unprecedented.

Finally, I'm not here to rescue the Unity Pony. I'm here to kill the Unity Pony, and make the world safe for genuine progressives.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-17 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: First, lose the arrogant, abusive attitude

Well stated !

by gorgias 2008-06-17 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: First, lose the arrogant, abusive attitude

Gorgias, please write some more troll diaries,the site needs more ad revenue.

Here is Gorgias on tv looking so smart:

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-06-17 01:00PM | 0 recs
Weasels trolled out the data-filled response

You have a multi-million-voter problem on your hands, created by your own abusive conduct ... and you think you can cure it with more abusive conduct???

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-17 04:00PM | 0 recs
And 17 million net margin per ABC/WaPo

52% leaned self-identified D's
39% of those favoring Clinton
24% of those will vote McCain
another 13% will vote "other" or leave it blank
Extending those over an estimated 140M general election voters yields a net margin (unfavorable) of 17 million votes due to disaffected Clinton supporters.

Some of those will come home. Some are definitively out of reach. And the Obama brigades are still hard at work alienating the rest of 'em.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-17 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: 3.4 million HRC voters for McCain
I find it very odd that somebody who trashed Ralph Nader for running in 2000 is now openly supporting McCain over Obama Compared to the differences between Gore & Nader, the differences between Clinton and Obama are infinitesimal.
by Peter H 2008-06-17 03:50PM | 0 recs
Obama, like Nader ...

... marshaled the voters' own hopes and dreams against them.

And as the now-hidden response to 'Student Guy' indicated, Bradley defectors (28% of Bradley's original 4% of total voters) were sufficient to defeat Gore in 2000, in a cycle that was roses and lollipops compared to 2008.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-17 04:09PM | 0 recs
I don't question...

...that the PUMA movement may be effective in swinging the election to McCain.  Certainly, there's the example of Ralph Nader in 2000.  Whether electing McCain is something people who call themselves progressives should aim for is something different entirely.  

At least with Nader, there were a number of issues where he was sharply differed from Democrats as well as Republicans - corporate power, defense spending, single-payer health care, free trade, etc.  The differences between Clinton & Obama, in contrast, are tiny.,      

by Peter H 2008-06-17 06:26PM | 0 recs
So you may think

And though it cramps the field of discourse, I will respect site standards by refraining from presenting an affirmative case for defeating Obama (should he be the Democratic nominee).

I merely affirm my position -- that I will vote for McCain (or the Puppy-Throwing Marine, for that matter) if that's what it takes to stop Obama, and that I consider this my progressive civic obligation.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-18 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

Betsy,--you are absolutely right.  In the many years that I've voted as a Democrat, I've never seen anything like vitriol spewed by the Obamatans.

Many of us tried to point this out throughout the primary season, but to no avail.  And we are where we are.

by trixta 2008-06-16 09:01PM | 0 recs
Thank You! Today's display was just a

continued reminder that there's no effort for unification from the Obama camp! Nobody here has talked about the booing at the mention of Clinton's name, how convenient!

by suzieg 2008-06-17 12:15AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs

"They're not just upset with the way Clinton was treated. They're upset with the way they, as long time Dem activists, were treated.  You can't attack, purge and invalidate large sections of the party base during a contentious primary, then command them to shut up and fall in line."

That's true, somebody should sue.  I assume there are lawyers working on that?

by shellius 2008-06-17 01:49PM | 0 recs
Oh, the circles.

Oh, the circular reasoning that I get from some of these PUMAs makes me cry..


  1. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama in November.

  2. Because I refuse to vote for Barack Obama in November, Barack Obama is unelectable.

  3. Because Barack Obama is unelectable, I refuse to vote for Barack Obama in November.

And they wonder why they always make sense to each other...

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-16 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, the circles.

I also like the argument: I've got nothing against Obama but he's been nominated by an anti-democratic process so I'll vote for McCain.

If Hillary had been nominated, it would have been through the same anti-democratic process, so I would have voted for McCain too.

So in any case I would have voted for McCain.

by french imp 2008-06-16 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, the circles.

We'll win w/o them. This election isn't even going to be close. You heard it here first.

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-06-16 09:48PM | 0 recs
I'm making a note of your words for November

when he'll lose!

by suzieg 2008-06-17 12:17AM | 0 recs
reminiscent of Life of Brian

Last night when I was foolishly checking out noquarter, I saw posters touting the different PUMAs - evidently there's the original and also pumapac - and saying which was really the very best and the most pure.

It reminded me of the scenes in Monty Python's "The life of Brian" where there's splits between very small politically sectarian groups.

Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quot es

These are angry folks and they can't even unify their own small numbers.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

Excellent article, recced!

I suspect the PUMA's are the mouse that roared. A fool telling their tale, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

Does this mean that Obama doesn't have to work hard to try and heal any party rifts? Of course not. But I don't believe the rift is as "impossible to heal" as No Quarters and HillaryIs44 would hope and pray that it is.

Really, their behavior has gone beyond the point of perverse.

by Rictor Rockets 2008-06-16 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

I respect your dedication, but to equate DKos and the utter garbage that is No Quarter is extremely unfair. There were a few posts at Kos that went over the top a bit - EVERY SINGLE POST at that other place is filled with the most vile smears of Obama possible. Our good buddy TexasDarlin is over there STILL claiming that he's a Muslim.

Let's not get it twisted, and let's not forget where the real derangement came from this primary season.

by authority song 2008-06-16 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

I agree. I've been checking out NQ and the racism is vile. Obama gets called a mongrel, they mock Michelle's appearance, they call Obama and his supporters savages.  And they are absolutely irrational.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

I just went over there actually, and shockingly enough its toned down considerably. Still absolutely nuts (Tom DeLay is approvingly quoted as calling Obama a "Marxist"), but there's nothing racist on the front page.

Congratulations, No Quarter!

by authority song 2008-06-16 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

After the mocking of Michelle, complete with a very unflattering picture, which was picked up by Sully, the nasty stuff seems mostly to show up in comments.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 03:51PM | 0 recs
How funny, the outrage about unflattering images

of Michele when there was complete silence when it was done to Hillary! Welcome to the sexist and misogynistic world... let her get what she deserves while she sat silently next to her husband who did not discourage it against Clinton. What goes around, comes around...

by suzieg 2008-06-17 12:21AM | 0 recs
Funny indeed.

The attacks on Michelle Obama did not begin last week.  They've been a fixture of the entire primary.

Let me see if I get where you're coming from: Hillary Clinton deserves everything that's ever happened to her and indeed, should be attacked now and for the rest of her career because she did nothing to discourage it.

She deserves what she gets.

Is that about right?  Do you believe that?  If not, why not?

by Jess81 2008-06-17 02:05AM | 0 recs
"what she deserves"?!?!?!

fuck. you.

by annatopia 2008-06-17 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

This is just not true!  I've never come across such language at NQ!

by trixta 2008-06-16 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

WHAT?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

If you're having trouble coming across that kind of language at No Quarter, an easy way to find it is to go to the website, and then back away from you monitor.  Throw a rock at the screen and check where it hits.

Wow.  She totally just said "This is just not true!  I've never come across such language at NQ!".  What the fuck.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 02:08AM | 0 recs
From a Clintonista's

point of view they are close.  They both treat the supporters of the non favored candidate very similarly.

Note I am one of the ones working on the Flowbee project so you can infer that I don't like him at all, but Dkos was pretty repellent from a Clintonista's perspective.

by Student Guy 2008-06-16 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: From a Clintonista's

Then the Clintonista's point of view is wrong. Nowhere on DailyKos will you EVER find anything remotely like what is said on No Quarter and H44 multiple times a day. Nowhere. I'm prepared to admit that Kos flew off the handle a few times, and that the general tone there was certainly not pro-Hillary (although I'm not sure what else anyone expected), but the two are not comparable in any way and from any point of view.

by authority song 2008-06-16 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: From a Clintonista's

The whole thing is a smear campaign - crazy stories about how Obama isn't a citizen because of what they claim is or was the law or that Hawaii not only wasn't a state but still isn't one - all kinds of nutsy things.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-16 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: From a Clintonista's

SG, for once I beg to disagree. There are lots of
reasonable diaries on DKos. Besides there are lots of diaries which have nothing to do with the elections.

I've read many excellent diaries about torture, for instance. I've learned a lot about the US there, actually; and I'm grateful for that.

There has been some Clinton bashing there,
but there has been some Obama bashing here. On the whole the people at DKos are decent folks just as the people here. I think many Obama supporters, like me, prefer mydd because there are Clinton supporters here and we can have interesting debates. Unfortunately there are very few Clinton supporters left on DKos which makes the place less exciting.

I know that many Clinton supporters left DKos because of the tough climate at one stage. Why I understand and respect their choice, I think Obama supporters were right to stay at mydd, in what seemed to be hostile territory some time ago, and keep the conversation going. Does this reflect a philosophical difference?

by french imp 2008-06-16 04:12PM | 0 recs
I am saying from their viewpoint

I went over with kevin22262 when he posted a fundraising appeal for the myPA campaign and the reaction he got was really vitriolic.  I do agree that there is a lot of good stuff over on Dkos (you just have to avoid the really crummy stuff) but in April parts of it were close to NoQuarter (not talking about racism/sexism just reaction to a candidate).

by Student Guy 2008-06-16 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I am saying from their viewpoint

I find it difficult to forget about racism/sexism
when comparing blogs... Besides, sharply criticizing a candidate is not, in my opinion, a major offense, as long as it is based on logical arguments which one is willing to discuss.

If you don't talk about genocide, warmongering and dictatorship, the Nazi regime was not really that bad, actually.

by french imp 2008-06-16 11:53PM | 0 recs
I kind of disagree.

Kos was not as bad as those sites are now but there was a time when both were partisan to the same degree.  As an Obama supporter, I was shocked that Clinton supporters saw Kos that way but it's because of my biased point of view.
Now that the nominee has been decided and the Clinton supporters I used to call trolls are my friends, I realize they were no more trollish than I was.

Point of view warps our perception much more than we realize is all I'm saying.

As for NQ and the others where they are now is anti-Democratic party...they have crossed the line and are rightwing smear sites.  

by GFORD 2008-06-16 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I kind of disagree.

When I posted at DK I was shocked at the bias against and hatred for all things Clinton.  HRC supporters were relentlessly harassed and intimidated by the Obama Brown Shirts.

by trixta 2008-06-16 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I kind of disagree.

Hide-rated for equating Obama supporters with Nazis.

by PSUdan 2008-06-17 05:16AM | 0 recs
Huh.

It's weird you didn't meet with a more favorable response, given how reasonable and generous your style of argument is.

by jere7my 2008-06-17 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Huh.

Absolutely.

All carefully and reasonably laid out points - easy to understand yet highly sophisticated.

And, I should add, totally free of invective.  It's a mystery to me why they wouldn't have loved her.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

Agreed. As someone who routinely rated down ugly anti-Clinton comments and mocked hyperbolic diaries, I'll admit to feeling outnumbered over at Dkos. It's as if moderation had to retreat two steps back, holding the line at certain kinds of profanity and character assassination, but unfortunately allowing a lot of nasty vitriol to filter through. More than I was comfortable with, certainly.

But the rec list at kos usually was and still is a more diverse sample of writing on more than just campaign topics, and throughout the primary it was certainly more than just Clinton bashing. Meanwhile, the rec list here filled up with hit pieces almost every evening, while no1/4, TM, and H44 went into exclusive and ugly anti-Obama mode early and often.

I know a lot of people don't like the orange place, but despite its size, there's a lot of good work appearing there. The diary rescue for one day alone has more substantial progressive writing than you'll ever find at Larry's site.

by BobzCat 2008-06-16 03:53PM | 0 recs
Totally concur

The differences on the rec list are pretty staggering.  Even now.

by Regenman 2008-06-16 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

But NQ is a site for disaffected and alienated HRC supporters and has made no pretense at being a site for "all" progressives--unlike DK which is fronting as an "all-progressives" site, but is really a pro-Obama site (=anti-HRC) site.  HuffingtonPost and AirAmerica have operated this way too -- i.e. as Obama propaganda sites which are grounded in a hatred for all things Clinton.

by trixta 2008-06-16 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic

Peddle your BS elsewhere.

by BobzCat 2008-06-16 09:39PM | 0 recs
PUMA stands for
Previously
Undercover
McCain
Assets
by benmasel 2008-06-16 05:14PM | 0 recs
nah, it's
Please
Understand
Marijuana
Addiction
by Coldblue 2008-06-16 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA stands for

Really, I think it stands for

IGNORE THEM BECAUSE THEY THRIVE ON ATTENTION LIKE SPOILED CHILDREN.

Every mention on major websites like this one or Kos gets an entire diary devoted to it.  There are certain personality types that thrive on opposition, take it away from them and they lose purpose.  Separate the people who genuinely want John McCain as president from the people who live in "me against the word" fantasyland.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 02:20AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive

"So why should we now cheer on the ugly, misogynistic treatment now given to Michelle Obama?"

What goes around comes around.

Mrs Obama's husband is a direct beneficiary of misogyny against Hillary.

Where were Mrs Obama when her husband's senior advisor called Hillary a "monster"?

She was fanning the flames of hatred and racism.

She is about to get a taste of her own medicine. Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

by DonB11 2008-06-16 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive

HRed for utter contemptibility.

If you are so virulently opposed to the presumptive Democratic nominee, and if you support misogynistic treatment of anyone, perhaps a Democratic blog isn't the best place for you.  Might I suggest you spend more time at one of the several sites for others who hate Barack and Michelle Obama?

by mistersite 2008-06-16 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive

"Where were Mrs Obama when her husband's senior advisor called Hillary a "monster"?"

Oh come on, that was an off-the-record comment by Samantha Powers, who is a highly respected author and fighter of genocide.  Everyone slips up. Overblown rhetoric about that is silly.  Powers was fired within about 48 hours too.  Nobody was "fanning" any flames.

I was a Hillary supporter, I feel your pain. Now let's move on.  Dwelling on Hillary's loss gets us nowhere. Take her own advice and work toward defeating McCain!

by shellius 2008-06-17 01:48PM | 0 recs
My Signature...

by lizardbox 2008-06-16 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

Aren't there better ways for Hillary Clinton Democrats to channel the anger from the primaries?

Rage is never rational, you know. They're on a blind vengeance trip.  They want to punish the Democratic Party, and to a lesser extent, Obama, for how Hillary Clinton was treated. It's not anything more complicated or confusing than that.

And there aren't that many of them. They're just getting a lot of media coverage.

The people Obama needs to worry about are not the PUMAs. It's all the quiet, non-blogging, ordinary women, men, Latinos, and blue-collar workers who don't like or trust him. You'll never see any of them represented on any blog, but they are out there. Most of them supported Hillary because they liked her better than Obama. Hillary being out of the race hasn't actually made them like Obama any better. That's something he'll have to earn for himself, if he can.

Of course I'm sure the Obama campaign knows this, which is why they're ignoring the PUMAs and everyone else should too. If you want to do something helpful for Obama, trying thinking up ways to make him more likable to the Democratic blocs who are still not voting for him even though Hillary is out. (No, I don't have any suggestions, myself. I think he's perceived generally by these folks as "green" and out-of-touch with "regular" America, and I have no idea what he can do about either of those since it's too late for him to get more experience, and any attempt to show those voters that he "understands their pain" at this point is most likely going to look insincere at best, insulting at worst.

So ignore the PUMAs and worry about the SABO voters -- "Skeptical About Barack Obama." (Yeah, I just coined that. Sounds like "sabot", which is an old type of shoe mill workers used to throw into the machinery to break it in protest. From this comes the word "sabotage". And Barack's problems with these voters, I am christening "SABOtage".)

by Michigoose 2008-06-16 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

I'll rec this because I agree, but not entirely for the reasons you do.

Oh, I want to talk about the Andrew Young vs. Kathleen Sibelius analogy you made the other day sometimes when you're around, but this isn't the diary for it.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 02:22AM | 0 recs
PUMA:

I think the PUMA thing is pretty interesting.  They are not all voting for McCain, in fact many are choosing not to vote at all instead.

by Susan in Oregon 2008-06-16 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA:

Yeah, I think this is what the Obama camp should actually be worried about. Not the folks who are defecting to McCain -- they're just aren't that many. They make a spicy little news story for the MSM and the McCain camp to jump on but they aren't going to have a significant impact.

Obama's problems are going to be:

A)  with the Independents, many of whom like McCain's position on national defense and his proven voter record of voting against financially wasteful legislation, even if they prefer Obama on Iraq and healthcare, for example.  They don't consider a McCain win in November to be a disaster; they don't completely agree with either Obama or McCain, so no matter how they vote they have to make a compromise. The question is what will turn out to be most important to them.

B) with the not-politically-active Dems, the majority of the party, who don't volunteer or blog, but whose sole crucial contribution is going to the polls on Election Day and pulling a lever.  Many of them may decide just to stay home if they're not sufficiently enthused about an Obama presidency. Whether he can balance that by registering more young people, blacks, and upscale voters than usually vote remains to be seen. (Mostly the kids and the African Americans -- upscale Dems pretty much always vote.)

by Michigoose 2008-06-16 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA:

You're describing regular voters though - as I'm sure you know.  People who are genuinely undecided and base their votes on issues as well as a general feel of the candidates.  Independants and leaners.

PUMA has nothing to do with those people.  These are basically the new Larouchites.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 02:24AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA:

Not voting, eh?  That will really learn us not to support someone other than Hillary Clinton.

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-06-16 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA:

You do realize none of this is actually about Clinton any more, right? She provided the spark  but the fire took off without her (even though she tried to throw water on it, it was too late.)

And anyway, these folks aren't concerned with what YOU do. They're just venting their rage. They won't last unless the Obama camp has another major meltdown.

by Michigoose 2008-06-16 09:51PM | 0 recs
Let 'em go.

Let them leave the party. Do we really want wackos like them in the party anyway?

If they were true "progressives," BTW, wouldn't they be supporting Ralph Nader?

They don't care a fig about advancing "progressive" values. They want to prevent Obama from becoming President by any means necessary.

Whether this is all pro Hillary, or they are a bunch of trojan horses inserted int the party by the GOP, makes little difference.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-06-16 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Let 'em go.

They don't currently matter much except as a media curiosity.

However, Obama better not make any more major flubs between now and November, or they could turn into the kernel of a much larger group that might actually have an impact.

by Michigoose 2008-06-16 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Let 'em go.

Unlikely.  They're repellant.

Have you BEEN to any of those sites?  Unless you speak the language and share the prejudgements, you won't find a home there.

Barack Obama faces obstacles pretty similar to those of other candidates, plus the ones that come with having his name and his looks.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 02:27AM | 0 recs
It's all about principles, slim

PUMAs are not a collected one voice group.  Many will write in Hillary, some may sit home, some may vote Nader, some may vote McCain.  Stop trying to paint them with a single brush.  The distinguishing  feature is they don't accept an ILLEGITIMATE candidate (Obama), who in the process of being put in the position of demo candidate, despite a popular vote victory by Hillary, will vote their principles. Oh sure ignore them.  Their number are growing, rather substantially btw.

by gorgias 2008-06-17 12:38PM | 0 recs
LAST FREEKING TIME

Hillary did not DECIDE to step out of the race. SHE LOST and HAD NO CHOICE.

Until you supporters start to deal with reality you contribute to the problem that will elect McCain. You want the Obama supporters to respect you and your support of Clinton but you expect us to sit and listen to total bullshit.

You want respect? Act like adults and be honest.

by Grissom1001 2008-06-16 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: LAST FREEKING TIME

Dude, who are you talking to??

by Michigoose 2008-06-16 09:47PM | 0 recs
Uh...

I'm not sure you read the diary.

by Mardarkin 2008-06-17 03:24AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

This segment of Clinton supporters promising to vote McCain is an ever-shrinking, increasing irrelevant voter group.  Just ignore them and they'll shrivel up in time.  I'm not even convinced all of them were Clinton supporters in the first place.  I think a lot of them are McCain supporters from the beginning trying to prop up a illusionary mov't. Just wait, in 2 months there will be close-to ZERO talk of Clinton supporters voting for McCain.  For every one of these obnoxious former "Clinton supporters" dangling a threat of a McCain vote over the heads of REAL Democrats, there are 20 more who have already come over to support the dem nominee and don't feel a need to broadcast to the world. The polls show it's true!  

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-06-16 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

Oh, you are sooooo wrong.  It's actually growing..how odd.  Denial doesn't make things go away uaddressed

by gorgias 2008-06-17 04:15PM | 0 recs
Sometimes you've got to take out the trash.

And that's what PUMAs and their ilk are. Let them do their dirty work for McBush from his side of the fence instead of Obama's.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-16 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Sometimes you've got to take out the trash.

Somehow I don't think you have the power or influence to get these people to do anything.  How exactly do you plan to "take out the trash"?  And why in the world would it be worth your time?

You're seriously overreacting here. Anything you did or tried to do would just give them more attention and keep them going longer.  Be an adult and just ignore them. If you pick at it, it'll never heal, you know.

by Michigoose 2008-06-16 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Sometimes you've got to take out the trash.

I'm not overreacting. It's the people who can't get over hillary's loss and moan incessantly about some kind of raw deal she got who are.

Of course, "take out the trash," really means, "let the trash leave."

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-17 07:22AM | 0 recs
I somewhat disagree about the ignoring part.

I think it's better to point out who they are, where they come from, what their agenda is and how few of them there are.  That way, anything they say that might make its way to the public eye at some point is suspect in advance due to the source.

PUMA:  Barack Obama is not a U.S. Citizen
Ignorant person:  OMG!  Is that true?

or

PUMA:  Barack Obama is not a U.S. Citizen
Knowledgable person:  I don't believe anything that comes from those rightwing smear merchants.

Just sayin'

by GFORD 2008-06-17 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

This is pretty much being shown to be a sham. Out of Morbid curiosity I went to places like No quarter h44 to see if there really was a groundswell like Neil Cavuto, which is hilarious that he is the only one giving them airtime allowed them to claim.  From what I saw, no more then 20 active posters on any page, saying the same thing you could get via a quick jump to free republic.  Its a sham, and they cant even get on a prime time Fox show, shows just how far this sham will go.  

by Brandon 2008-06-16 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

Obviously a sham. Which is why I wonder why people are spending time writing diaries about this lot or saying they should be "taken out" and pointless stuff like that.  

They're just a conglomerate of trolls looking for attention. Don't give it to them.

by Michigoose 2008-06-16 10:49PM | 0 recs
This seems like cutting off the nose to spite

the face.   I guess that a strong Clinton supporter could rationalize support of McCain on tactical grounds - if he wins now, it sets her up to run againt him in 2012.  But there are so many unknowns in politics, and McCain could do so much damage in 4 years, that this approach seems nihilistic.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-17 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: This seems like cutting off the nose to spite

I had friends who thought Reagan was fine in 1980 because it would turn the American people toward the left. It didn't happen and left lots of damage, lots of programs for the poor were cut and military spending increased.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-17 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: This seems like cutting off the nose to spite

by Jess81 2008-06-17 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: This seems like cutting off the nose to spite

Oh my god.  I've spent my entire life arguing with those fools.  They infect college campuses, and have sprouted up in some anti-Obama sites.

I never knew how to respond because it's supported by nothing and contradicted by everything.  "Huh.  That's an interesting theory.  Except history doesn't work that way.  It never has, ever.  Ever."

It's an even more boneheaded idea than Guevaraism (look it up if you have to), and that's a really low bar.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 09:53AM | 0 recs
Come join my new group

Obama supporters for McCain, it makes as much sense.

by Dog Chains 2008-06-17 05:37AM | 0 recs
It is best to ignore these people

As others have noted, this group is small in number and they are unreachable.  There is no benefit to giving them any press whatsoever.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-17 05:39AM | 0 recs
We can't ignore the racism in the PUMA movement

McCain's pow-wow with them was set up by a racist crackpot astroturfer.

At least one prominent PUMA blog refers to Obama as the "affirmative action candidate."

by Geekesque 2008-06-17 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: We can't ignore the racism in the PUMA movemen

I know - when every other word out of their mouths has to do with his race, there's a problem.

I grew up in Yonkers (think The Sopranos) and my early childhood was spent in the middle of the schools being forcibly desegrated.  It's actually a pretty famous case.  Anyway it brought out this tremendous white backlash and everything people are saying now just brings me right back to when I was a kid.  I know what these people say in public, and what it's a code for, and what they say in private because they think I'm one of them, and the ones that don't even realize how awful their ideas are and all the rest of it.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 10:06AM | 0 recs
Jacob Freeze hasn't been banned yet?

Talk about Dead Enders . . .

by Geekesque 2008-06-17 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Jacob Freeze hasn't been banned yet?

I don't know what his deal is.

I don't mind the troll-rating though.  Know why?  Because most of my posts are platinum hits.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: We can't ignore the racism in the PUMA movemen

Every time I bring up that some of them show racist tendencies, people run from that like it's fire.  

There are some Hillary groups right now that are like white supremacist groups.  The sad thing is, they don't even know it. I'd like to know how to knock them down, even shut them down. I'm trying my best to self-destruct one group and it's working, but they're also ready to kick me out because I have the audacity to defend that guy who in their eyes has  a racist wife and is  Muslim.  The PUMA people are much the same, and some of them most definitely are like white supremacists. I'd like to expose them  for what they are, not ignore it.

I spent a lot of time exposing the sexism towards Hillary, so this to me is the same as that effort. We shouldn't ignore it, we should attack it.

by shellius 2008-06-17 01:58PM | 0 recs
The Pumas are little bitty cubs.

Though feral, inconsequential.

by Geekesque 2008-06-18 04:47AM | 0 recs
Wonder how many of these women

Caught the joke?

Honestly PUMA? another word for Cougar which is term describing older women. In fact according to the Urban Dictionary a Puma is a future Cougar.

They're being mocked at that site and aren't even aware of it.

by Skex 2008-06-17 10:21AM | 0 recs
Oh it's so terrible.

Not just what you pointed out - and it was the first thing I thought of, but cmon, the organization has the word 'ass' in its title.

These aren't the sharpest knives in the ginsu set.

by Jess81 2008-06-17 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA is a great movement

So in other words you're a Republican.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-17 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-
Oh, please.  We're as Democratic as they come.  Loyalty is not necessarily transferable.  Some years, it has to be earned.  
When Obama starts, earning it, he'll get our votes. Other than that, if you wanted unification, you should've picked the other candidate.
by goldberry 2008-06-17 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-

wow, So, by your own admission, the only candidate you would have voted for, regardless of a damn near mirror image on policy Is Hillary Clinton.  You, and the rest of the dead enders can vote for who you want, It doesn't matter to me, but your self importance is almost unbelievable.

Vote for who you want, this is identity politics run amuck, and yes its true, some of "those working class, white working class voters" wont vote for Obama, and he will win anyway, just to show you how much "power" you think you had.

by Brandon 2008-06-17 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA: Anti-Progressive, Anti-Democratic, Anti-
Oh, please.  We're as Democratic as they come.  Loyalty is not necessarily transferable.  Some years, it has to be earned.  
When Obama starts, earning it, he'll get our votes. Other than that, if you wanted unification, you should've picked the other candidate.
by goldberry 2008-06-17 05:16PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------