$500 for McCain, what a surprise.

Seriously though, good work. I hope that this debunks a lot of notions that are out there.

Also, as the article you linked points out, PUMA just sounds way too much like cougar to be credible…

Let’s not forget the other purpose of this: to promote disunity in the Democratic Party.

They had a story on one of the cable news shows yesterday about the literally “hundreds” of pro-Clinton, anti-Obama sites like PUMA…and the first thought I had is “why are they taking these sites at face value, I bet three quarters of them are Rethuglican operatives posing as Hillary supporters!”

I hope the left blogosphere digs into many of these sites and finds how phony most of them are…

And that the rest, if they really are Dems, come to their senses and don’t cut off their noses to spite their face!

Nifty detective work! If only the people (way over)paid to call themselves “reporters” would do a little of that…

They really do exist Amanda. I work with one. But the thing is that though she is registered democrat, she generally votes republican anyway. Hillary was the only thing keeping her in the democratic fold, and it was strictly based on personality, not ideology.

but the chances they have of skewing an election one way or the other is minimal at best.

The whole thing has a propaganda value way bigger than its electoral strength. Perhaps someone is hoping to create a media story. The media likes to go for anything stupid.

I have it from an unimpeachable source (my pharmacist’s nephew’s dog-sitter’s next-door neighbor) that Darragh Murphy has a tape or DVD or major CinemaScope production of Larry Sinclair lashing out at “Whitey,” either in a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ or the national convention of the American Nazi Party.  Whatever.  And I consider myself a loyal Democrat.  I didn’t leave the party - the party left me, v.2.008

I agree with you 100% - I’ve thought this was some kind of GOP scam from the beginning, and I still do.

Some of them are definitely real, but yeah, it’s being blown out of proportion overall and there is probably Republican scheming at work.

What’s the old and accurate aphorism?

People on the right hate the media when it does its job.  People on the left hate the media when it doesn’t do its job.

Needless to say, the left has a helluva lot more to complain about than the right, but the right does most of the effective complaining.

Good luck expecting the CMSMW to look into this.  The ones that aren’t bought are lazy, and the ones that aren’t lazy or bought are always stymied by those who are.

Hi Amanda -

I hadn’t heard of the PUMA PACs and from what you offer here, it’s easy to believe that they are a front.

But here in Ohio, there’s the Clinton Supporters Count Too which you’re probably aware of but just in case - it was started in mid-May by a woman who did indeed raise and give money to Clinton and has been waging against Obama long before Clinton suspended.  The group hosted Carly Fiorina a week or two ago.

Here are posts (feel free to delete some - I’m not interested in the traffic only for you or others to check out some of the more legitimate-sounding complaints some women voiced) that I wrote that have a couple of hundred comments between them, and I did verify and exchange emails with some of the commenters.  I didn’t run them through the Ohio SOS site or the FEC, and I’m NOT in their camp at any level, but are you really doubting that such sentiments exist?  I don’t think it’s unfathomable at all, but I also don’t know that it’s so much to be worried about - it’s to be expected, I would think. 

And admitting that, doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of conservatives or Republicans posing as something else.  That too I would think is to be expected.

http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/15/separate-the-people-from-the-point-lesson-1/

http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/15/more-on-clinton-supporters-count-too/

http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/16/the-relevance-of-clinton-supporters-count-too/

http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/21/how-to-approach-the-50yo-female-clinton-supporters-count-too-voters/

http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/23/and-now-a-few-words-from-the-hillary-clinton-forum-about-wlst/

http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/05/24/update-hillary-clinton-forum-says-im-not-a-woman-wants-ferrarro-to-read-my-post-on-air/

Thanks -

Jill

Well, ignoring that there are some Clinton supporters whose ideology is closer to the McCain camp, in any case, in exchange for amplifying the fakes doesn’t make us any better, imo.  Personally, I hate it when I get lumped into any one group when I know that there are exceptions (ex: if I write lovingly about Israel, I immediately get called a neo-con even though I’m vehemently opposed to numerous aspects of that country’s existence).

Seems like sticking to the focus of why Obama is preferable is the most concrete way to persuade people who are persuadable.  The group you’re highlighting isn’t going to be persuaded; the former Clinton supporters might be. So the goal of exposing is to show how repulsive McCain supporters are.  But how man more Obama votes does that get us?

While not arguing the point of your article, Amanda, I too have to say that I know of real examples of these sorts of women.  One in particular is a friend of my mother’s who identifies herself as a “feminist” and yet claims that she can’t vote for Obama, she “doesn’t know him,” and she’s voting for “the evil she knows rather than the one she doesn’t.”  My mother doesn’t have the stomach these days to argue with her or even to answer her e-mails.  And I don’t blame her.  All we can do is hope her brain switches back into the “on” position some time between now and November.  Since it clearly isn’t on at the moment.

It’s obvious that McCain would want to encourage it, but I think you underestimate the extent of the feeling.  The rapid growth, for instance, of Riverdaughter’s Confluence blog, which I mentioned before, suggests that it is more than just a random few wingnuts.  As I said, it’s obvious that the GOP would want to play it up, but if I were you, I’d be wary of ignoring the extent and thinking of it.

Even if it were up to a Nader-in-2000 number of voters, it’s still something to be concerned about.  And I still think myself that Obama was a mistake for the Democratic Party, or at least a riskier choice.

Fight back?  Again, the kind of “fight” hinges on whether or not you’re going to dismiss the issue as a complete fabrication.

And if you assume that they are completely irrational, you aren’t going to “bring them back to their senses.”

The main argument against the idea there there are serious numbers of actual feminist women who are part of the Dem base who are going to go to McCain is the fact that, seriously, very few people seem to be able to come up with anyone they actually KNOW who fits that description.

Back in 2000, I knew plenty of Nader supporters.  And I was a 19 year old redneck who considered myself moderate and didn’t even run in politically engaged circles.  Most of the people I considered fellow travelers back then had Ron Paul signs in their yards this past Christmas.

In 2008 I find myself a committed leftist surrounded by liberals of all stripes and boatloads of feminists, both activist and not.  I also live in New York, the heart of Hillary Country. If there were heaps of feminist liberal Democrats out there who were clamoring to vote McCain, I’d have run into one by now.

Women willing to get hysterical pretending to support Clinton on behalf of McCain are those that continue in their efforts to make political and social gains in this nation.  Self-haters, classic Freudian repression—whatever. They hate themselves and spread their hatred outward.  This campaign has been shameful as far as the lengths the media has gone to find and cover these women, not to mention the unhinged quality of coverage by many pundits.  I was an Edwards supporter but found myself defending Clinton all the time because of the sometimes unbelievable nature of the media coverage she received.  Argh.  Thanks for the legwork.

But that’s not where I get the sense that the numbers of anti-Obama dems are coming from.  They’re kind of like the inverse of the Nader voters.  They’re security/soccer mom types who trust the Clinton name and brand, and feel that the Obama campaign rode to victory on denigrating it, among other compaints.  They mistrust the youth/activism type that they hold responsible for Obama’s ascendency, deeply resent Howard Dean from his ‘04 campaign onward, and for some of those I’ve encountered on the Internet, this is their first stab at being a minority in the party, and it’s not a comfortable fit.  That it chafes increases their resentment.

The argument is that they’re being held hostage to Roe, when they have no confidence that Obama and his supporters and their collective experience and program really reflect their own lives.  That may be wrong, may be right, but either way, but it’s not an insigificant criterion on which to base a vote.

They’re security/soccer mom types who trust the Clinton name and brand, and feel that the Obama campaign rode to victory on denigrating it, among other compaints.  They mistrust the youth/activism type that they hold responsible for Obama’s ascendency, deeply resent Howard Dean from his ‘04 campaign onward, and for some of those I’ve encountered on the Internet, this is their first stab at being a minority in the party, and it’s not a comfortable fit.  That it chafes increases their resentment.

Well, yeah.  Republicans do tend to feel like “minorities” when they join the Democratic Party in order to game the general election.  Most members of the Democratic Party are Democrats.

Just because you voted for Clinton in ‘96 doesn’t make you a member of the Democratic base.

Mandos:

And if you assume that they are completely irrational, you aren’t going to “bring them back to their senses.”

Actually, I find that you get into far more trouble when you assume that people — people in general, not any particular demographic — aren’t predominantly irrational actors.

If you want to see that principle in action, try having an extended conversation with your local right-libertarian (or an Objectivist, if you’re really brave and/or patient).

The main argument against the idea there there are serious numbers of actual feminist women who are part of the Dem base who are going to go to McCain is the fact that, seriously, very few people seem to be able to come up with anyone they actually KNOW who fits that description.
Actually, I’d say the main argument against the idea there are significant numbers of actual feminist women who are going to support McCain is the simple fact that actual feminist women are not complete freaking morons.

Calling them Republicans doesn’t work: they’re a traditional (D) base and have been for a long time.

I think the gas rebate issue, or whatever it was, was a case in point as to the divergence of views here.  One side (most of the Obama-supporting blogosphere) saw it as a case of junk economics being promulgated by Clinton, and denigrated the reputation of the reality-based community, which is what they thought the (D) stood for.  Unscientific pandering.

The other side saw it as a gesture in favour of government as a New-Dealish provider of immediate assistance to individual people, regardless of its economist-approvedness.

For that latter side, the Obama side looked like Democratic Johnny-come-latelies who bought economic anti-government arguments too easily.  Social liberals, often economic libertarians, held hostage by Roe, no commitment to what many Clinton supporters saw as role of the Democratic party as a New Deal guarantor.

And Balloon Juice?  Case in point.

A $30 (if the stars align) savings being compared to the New Deal?

I wonder why anyone would think that was irrational.

Au contraire, I think it’s dumb to assume that everyone is stupid who votes differently from you.  To talk math-speak a bit, they may be optimizing a function of which you are not aware.

My function is basically whether at least marginally fewer people would suffer and die.  So if I could vote in a US election, I’d probably vote for Obama, tepidly.  Or if she had won, Clinton, tepidly.  Marginally fewer people will die screaming with either of them than with McCain.  Other people have more optimistic criteria.  It’s there that you find the real differences, and even the apparently ignorant come up with some surprising reasons and decisions.

It’s not just the $30.  The reasons for dismissing it and the arguments given by one side made the other side distrustful.  It may or may not have been wrong, but it wasn’t prima facie stupid.  At the time, it sounded like if it had been $300 or $3000, some Obama supporters would have opposed it, for principled reasons.  That meant a real difference in political outlook.  The value of putting a small amount of money in people’s pockets is itself a philosophical difference and a signal to some that larger things aren’t safe either.

Need to restore faith in the immediate benefits of government, right?  That I agree with.  A lot of the anti-gov’t sentiment in the US is actually somewhat easy to understand, because the benefits of the government so rarely show up directly.

There are many PUMA NOT McCAIN feminists out there. They state that they plan to write-in HRC, or to vote Green if write-in not an option in their state. I have seen their blogs for years or have been on listservs with them for years. I suspect that most of them will vote for Obama when pull comes to lever (old fart here). There may be many centrist or Blue Dog Democrats out there who simply will not vote for a black man, but don’t want to appear racist. These (consciously or unconsciously) racist centrists never were feminists, though they believe in equal pay for equal work. They may also be inherently more fearful in temperament, and subject to the Obama is Muslim myth.

So there we go.  The talk about “rational” vs. “irrational” and what one does about these concepts is one of the main differences in perspective.  The $30 may have been “irrational”, but there are still reasons to think it was a smart thing to do.  And even if it wasn’t smart, the reasons for opposing it may still leave people cold and mistrustful.

The whole thing revolved around “irrational” and “pandering”, and for some people, “pander” is precisely what they wanted and believed was the right strategy, and “rational” is slavery to a defunct economist.

During this campaign, I’ve come to realize that the little things matter, and that offense at a slight may seem “irrational” but may yet not necessarily “stupid” or “unwise.”

Mandos:

It’s not just the $30. The reasons for dismissing it and the arguments given by one side made the other side distrustful. It may or may not have been wrong, but it wasn’t prima facie stupid.

Well, pretty much everyone who works in the economics of the oil industry was pretty straightforward in their assertion that that the gas rebate proposal was pointless pandering and wouldn’t solve any problems at all. The lesson here is that being unable or unwilling to accept an overwhelming and unambiguous argument from obviously non-fallacious authority isn’t the act of a rational person, it’s not just a matter of opinion, and it’s most certainly not just a “philosophical difference.” It’s an overt rejection of the entire basis of logic and rationality.

This isn’t toddler tee-ball, where everyone goes home with a gold star and a pat on the back no matter how bad they suck at it. We’re talking about the real world, where the simple act of having an opinion just isn’t enough.

A lot of the sincere PUMA women may also be poorly informed, no thanks to the press, which all but gives McCain B-Js on a daily basis. Specifically, they may not have heard about the Ledbetter decision and about McCain’s approval of same and unwillingness to vote yes on reparative legislation. I’d stereotype the non-racist sincere PUMA women as white, middle to upper-middle class, probably married, not in need of reproductive services (menopausal or tubes tied), working or staying home, suburban or exurban, doesn’t go to any effort to find out news, only thinks of poor people as distant “them”. Clinton may be a hero, but generally they don’t find politics interesting beyond the horse race.

Not everyone who backed Clinton was a progressive or a feminist. I don’t think there are massive numbers of them preparing to vote McCain. There certainly are some. Some of them may be more hawkish on foreign policy than Obama. Some may be pro-life or think that McCain isn’t really anti-choice and just pandering to his base to get elected. They may have other reasons they like McCain. As Incertus said, if there are enough of them to sway the election, we have much bigger problems. And at places like Shakesville, where you’ll find plenty of commenters who still are pretty upset about the primary, they mostly are voting Green, not for McCain, or not voting at all. They consider themselves non-partisan progressives.

Anyway, I’m inclined to think that some amount of this is, as you said, rat-fuckery and some amount of it is real, but all of it is a very small minority of voters. I’d like to see the media stop buying into this meme unless they can find some substantiation, but I also think you’re spending a lot of time getting upset and trying to refute something that in your posts you say is not actually a big deal.

Not so.  You are seeing this as JUST a matter of the amount of money that goes into gas rebate, andwhether the rebate *itself* made sense *economically*.  What other people were seeing was a very eager willingness to listen uncritically to industry economists (== the *enemy*, an attitude to which I have some sympathy).  In fact, the failure to see the externalities, and the eager willingness to call it “pandering” was itself an symptom of “economism”, for lack of a better word.  Instead, the larger political/social/cultural benefit of the tiny economic improvement it may actually be was ignored.  (As was the chance to stick it to the economists…)

That this point is not seen by Obama supporters captures a lot of the disagreement in itself.  It means, for some people, in some traditional (D) constituencies, that the Obama supporters cannot be trusted to reflect or include their political predilections.  And if Obama is a movement, this must necessarily affect the attitude of an Obama presidency.  Not a stupid nor even an irrational train of thought.

(The “not so” was for Dan.)

Seriously, Mandos, you’re arguing that somehow a gas tax holiday- the epitome of clueless Republican vote pandering taxes, was somehow a progressive idea? Hey, those Bush tax cuts must’ve been even more amazingly progressive, huh?
Listening to experts, experts from all freaking sides which you somehow dismiss as being “pro-oil economists” is a bad thing now? If you want to make your own facts feel free to wuit lying about your politics and vote for the Republican candidate like you’re obviously planning to. Just don’t lie to us, we’re not stupid enough to be fooled by the lies you can fool the rednecks and Jesus freaks with.

I can’t vote in the USA.  I can only aimlessly opine.  If you want to accuse me of being a wingnut rather than acknowledge the extent and meaning of the PUMA phenomenon or at least agree to disagree with me, that’s your prerogative.

Have fun.  I hope I’m wrong, but just don’t say I didn’t warn you.

You mean the “phenomenon” that Amanda just demonstrated is a Republican rat-fuck operation?

Tax holidays in the US are a traditionally Republican gambit, meant primarily to play on people’s ire towards “big government,” not economists, and thus are very very far from New Deal thinking.

I suppose Clinton could have pulled a good chunk of mostly conservative women from the McCain camp. But we’re already seeing a chunk of conservatives being pulled from McCain to Obama anyway. It’s at best (for McCain) a wash.

Mandos:

So there we go. The talk about “rational” vs. “irrational” and what one does about these concepts is one of the main differences in perspective. The $30 may have been “irrational”, but there are still reasons to think it was a smart thing to do.

Sure, if you think that “GIMME $30, ASSHOLE!!!” is a devastating political argument.

And even if it wasn’t smart, the reasons for opposing it may still leave people cold and mistrustful.

Tough shit. I’m sick of being expected to validate people’s hurt feelings. If you’re in the wrong, you’re supposed to get your feelings hurt. That’s how you learn not to be wrong the next time.

The whole thing revolved around “irrational” and “pandering”, and for some people, “pander” is precisely what they wanted and believed was the right strategy, and “rational” is slavery to a defunct economist.

Yes. There’s a word for those people: “stupid.” I have no patience for someone who wants to be pandered to and refuses to listen to anyone who knows more than they do, as if being a willfully clueless assfedora were some kind of noble calling. Those people can go fuck themselves, and frankly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for defending them (unless, of course, you are one yourself, and then you pretty much have to defend them, don’t you?).

You are seeing this as JUST a matter of the amount of money that goes into gas rebate, and whether the rebate *itself* made sense *economically*. What other people were seeing was a very eager willingness to listen uncritically to industry economists (== the *enemy*, an attitude to which I have some sympathy). In fact, the failure to see the externalities, and the eager willingness to call it “pandering” was itself an symptom of “economism”, for lack of a better word. Instead, the larger political/social/cultural benefit of the tiny economic improvement it may actually be was ignored. (As was the chance to stick it to the economists…)

First, you don’t have the slightest clue how I’m seeing this. So fuck you very much for that. If you really want to engage in such transparent dishonesty, do it at TownHall where that kind of thing is tolerated.

Second, if I were talking about “industry economists,” don’t you think I’d have said something about actual industry economists, who, like, work for the actual oil industry? I said “[people] who work in the economics of the oil industry,” not “[people] who work in <strike>the economics of</strike> the oil industry.” Again, if you’re going to argue strawmen, go find someone who can’t see right through it.

Third, the reason you “lack a better word” for “economism” is because you just made up the concept out of whole cloth all by yourself. Again, strawman bad.

Fourth, the only benefit to Clinton’s gas rebate is that people might have been more inclined to vote for her if they really thought she was going to give them $30. BECAUSE THAT’S HOW PANDERING WORKS.

That this point is not seen by Obama supporters captures a lot of the disagreement in itself. It means, for some people, in some traditional (D) constituencies, that the Obama supporters cannot be trusted to reflect or include their political predilections. And if Obama is a movement, this must necessarily affect the attitude of an Obama presidency. Not a stupid nor even an irrational train of thought.

I want you to explain, in detail, why I should give a crap about people who clearly don’t have the slightest fucking clue what they’re talking about, but still demand that I listen breathlessly to every word that they say. Then I want you to explain how your unenlightened self-interest (and the desperate desire to make sure everyone knows about it) is in any way intelligent or rational.

I can only aimlessly opine.

That is painfully obvious.

Props on your research skills, Amanda. Calling out the disingenuous among that bunch and making clear that- in large part- it is much sound and little fury will hopefully keep the subject from catching on in the less responsible media.

And their numbers and impact on this election will be much less than they’d like to think. There has been a small percentage of Democrats that didn’t support the party candidate in every recent election. Using someone who actually won as an example, Bill Clinton lost 15% of the Democratic vote in 1996 (5% of that to Perot).

Amanda, I’m not “asking” anything at all, and I certainly wouldn’t ask you or anyone else to not fight back, especially when I’m more than willing to take the time to write multiple posts about the CSCT supporters being illogical and needing to consider the actual consequences of what they’re suggesting.

What I am saying is that there’s more than one single set of voters who say they were for Clinton and now will vote McCain: there are ones like the CSCT group and there are the PUMA groups - like you’ve exposed. 

And the people in these two groups are not the same so why would we approach them (or fight them as you say) in the same way since the goal in doing so will be different?  The CSCT group probably includes many persuadable voters who know that McCain is not an option but are still unable to voice a switch to Obama.  On the other hand, the PUMA group is impervious to any kind of persuading - and that’s why your exposing them for who they are matters - for that group - because it shows the desperation. 

But lumping the former group in with the latter could result in solidifying whatever alienation that group already feels, without Clinton still running.  And I can’t imagine what strategy would be considered a successful one if it exacerbates that sentiment by suggesting that they never were for real in the first place.

You know, the people I’ve heard from who won’t vote for Obama because they “don’t know him” or “don’t trust him” sound to me like they are saying “I don’t understand black people/folks with foreign names, and I don’t want to, it scares me.”

Because, normally, when you don’t know much about a candidate, you do research, right?

Amanda,

I’m usually a lurker but I wanted to say that you should check out the website, The Confluence ran by Riverdaughter. Ever since HRC conceded it has grown exponentially.  These people were real democrats who can’t bring themselves to vote for Obama.  Frankly I am disturbed by their sense of entitlement and their ignorance of the democratic rules.

Amanda - yes - I do get this tactic as you explain it in this most recent comment.  I am only, and I truly mean only, suggesting that at least the most vocal “don’t vote for Obama” group with which I’m familiar came into existence long before PUMA.  But I do understand your suggestion that perhaps such a group will feel even more okay with going with McCain if they listen to a group like PUMA, EXCEPT for the fact, as you point out, PUMA is a fake.  Got it.

I personally cannot get into the mindset of the Clinton supporters who refuse to accept Obama as the candidate, even though I’ve been face to face with them. And I don’t know anything about the extent to which these groups are in fact listening to one another - you said you hadn’t heard of CSCT so maybe PUMA is unknown too? I don’t know.  Given McCain’s absolutely horrific record on so many issues important to Clinton supporters, even those who say they “can’t” vote for Obama, if Clinton can keep up the level of support she’s been displaying for Obama through Oct. and depending on Obama’s VP pick, I just cant imagine the numbers being relevant or greater than the votes gained for Obama through other avenues.

At least, that’s my hope.

Alas, one of my favorite blogs, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, has drunk the PUMA Kool-aid

I was not at all surprised by the research. I suspected it was a Repub front to split the vote and discredit women.

WONDERFUL JOB Pandagon! Expect a flood of PUMA voters, they can’t realize when they are being DUPED.

You people are disgusting, Barack Obama has accomplished NOTHING in his career. McCain will win in 08’ against Obama.

PUMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Not all of the PUMAs are “hysterical” or “menopausal.”  Not all are even female.  There are many, many people out there who won’t vote for Obama simply because they don’t want him to be President.  He is too inexperienced and unqualified.  As for his policies being similar to Clinton’s, who knows if that’s really true or not because he changes his mind about so many of them.  He flip-flopped on FISA.  I don’t even trust him on choice, because of the Casey endorsement.  What did he promise Casey in order for that to happen?  Do you consider yourself progressive?  One of Obama’s biggest supporters is homophobic “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin.

Fortunately, Obama is not yet the official nominee.  Superdelegates will decide this, one way or another, and they have until the convention in August.

Thanks for the research!

I looked at about 35 pf the sites linked at justsaynodeal.com, and only one or two of them had any content at all except Hillary v. Obama, and almost all of them had much more anti-Obama than pro-Hillary content. There were plenty of Republican buzzwords: Muslim, Marxist, liberal media, guns and Bibles, sex and drugs scandals, Kim Jong Il endorsement, Larry Sinclair, birth certificate questions, illegal aliens.

It’s possible that some of these are legit single-issue sites started during the campaign by otherwise pretty conservative Hillary supporters whose only issue was electing a woman, but there has to be a lot of astroturf fakery in there.

Not all old, not all women, they are however all racists.
The only area where McCain has more in common with Clinton than Obama does is skin color. There is absolutely no other standard by which a Clinton supporter could even consider voting for McCain.

I seriously doubt that any significant number of actual feminists are stupid enough to vote for McCain. It’s nothing more than a Republican operation to present a bullshit narrative to the media.

Any so called progressive who votes for McCain has the blood of every soldier he sends to die on their hands. I hope they enjoy being complicit.

Barack Obama is a racist and a sexist. Please all of you kool-aid drinking cultists please name one legislative accomplishment Obama has done…that’s right there is zero! He sat in an anti-american church for 20 years and even donated to it. That’s not cange you can believe in…thats change you can XEROX!

Barack Obama is a racist and a sexist. Please all of you kool-aid drinking cultists please name one legislative accomplishment Obama has done…that’s right there is zero! He sat in an anti-american church for 20 years and even donated to it. That’s not cange you can believe in…thats change you can XEROX!

Comments like this are why stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Whether or not the Riverdaughter site is legit (not a Republican front), it’s horribly unimpressive. There’s a lot of publicity-seeking and posturing going on, and a lot of the stupidest Green rhetoric. Riverdaughter says:

“If I wake up on Nov. 5 to find that Barack Obama, the inexperienced, untested, unvetted, lightweight candidate who we counted on you to stop, if I find that he is NOT my president, I will finally be over it. If the man who called me a racist because I thought he was unready does not take the oath in January, I will be satisfied.”

That’s a pretty clear statement. She says that she probably won’t even vote for McCain, but if her main goal is to make sure Obama won’t become President, why shouldn’t she?

I do know an angry Clinton Democrat (my sister) and we have to deal with that. Even people like Digby are angry at Clinton’s media treatment and many of the statements by Obama supporters (and to a lesser extent, by the Obama campaign).

But the “justsaynodeal” phenomenon looks fake, and the Riverdaughter phenomenon looks dubious (not necessarily fake, maybe just very stupid.) We can’t take ths PR onslaught at face value.

I just keep wondering if this makes John McCain PUMA MAN.

That would be <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081693>, possibly the worst movie Donald Pleasence was ever in, which is saying something.

I actually do know a couple of people IRL who were Hilary supporters and now plan to vote for McCain.  They’re pretty politically ignorant- I’m trying, I’m trying- and they don’t like the idea of “a Muslim” being President.  Yeah. I SAID they were politically ignorant.

” 2) Reinforcing the narrative about how feminists are just hysterical bitches with no common sense who subsist on outrage, can’t act in their own self-interest because of their feminine-addled brains, and can safely be ignored. “

this is not a narrative, this is a very real phenomena. And it is not even characteristic of “feminine mind” or whatever.

If one creates a homogeneous echo chamber comprising of shrill dittoheads and slowly eliminating sensible competing opinion. The entire group in the end will become overcharged shrill fest. It’s what indoctrination is about.  (Right wing blogs, OS forums are the classic internet examples. In real world, it would be common psyop strategy.)

Feminism blogs, several of the top ones are creating this echo chamber. The original goal is noble enough, to create “safe space”. But unwittingly that leads of the creation of supercharged echo chamber with highly homogenized opinion feed on daily outrage.  Once it reaches critical mass, most of lead posters lost control of the group. Most caves upon mass backlash. Resentments is high.

The problem with PUMA. It uses exact same language and techniques to generate outrages commonly used. It taps deep in the resentment created daily, but the ultimate goal is of course different. Coop the resentment and redirect it against democratic party. This phenomena is highly predictable. Common campaign strategy.

—

As of now, the metric seems to indicate PUMA is holding steady, not a fad. It is no doubt supported by Television. (observe how many interviews they get) GOOG is holding it at 200K or so. Technorati is imploding.

But more importantly PUMA has several intellectual drivers behind it. There is a method in the action. It’s very consistent and typical online viral marketing mix with ground politics. (not many, I would say less than 10 or so)

As of now, it is hard to say “how many voters” exactly will be affected by this. Since there is no open traffic data. But looking at leaning democrat feminism blogs sympathizing with PUMA, at least there are some.

What action to take? Hard to say. but
1. feminism blogs need to connect with each others and start communicating
2. create coherent talking point on basic women issues. (put it in one place so everybody can link) This should be the basic agreed upon goals. PUMA big trick is to focus on petty rules to tap into outrages completely ignoring issues.
3. start fighting for mindshare, switch to campaign mode. (PUMA is intense online campaign effort. This is not fad, or momentary blog bleep)
4. deconstruct the mechanics of PUMA-McCain connection. (method, logic of operation, google rankings, who is paying, does it matches McCain email)

Remember it’s ultimately about “voters” and issues, not clever tricks or elaborate campaign gag. always keep an eye on the basic.

They’re security/soccer mom types who trust the Clinton name and brand, and feel that the Obama campaign rode to victory on denigrating it, among other compaints.

Those are the people who handed George W. Bush the election in 2004:  55 percent of white women voted for him.

That’s part of the problem here.  A lot of these people didn’t vote for Kerry last time around and were only going to vote for a “name” Democrat.  Otherwise, they were going Republican regardless of what happened.

My big worry with these groups is that they’re going to take the unorganized disgruntled and organize them before they can be widely exposed as fakes.  Yes, the people who fall for it will feel stupid on Nov. 5th when they find out they were fooled by Republican operatives, but by then it will be too late.

Anya,

Obama has many legislative accomplishments:
Illinois State Senate
1. Law requiring confessions to be taped
2. Healthcare for children
3. Earned Income Tax credit for low income families
4. Law prohibiting racial profiling

U.S. Senate
1.  Nuclear Proliferation
2. Ethics Standards
3. Good Government transparency.

Great diggin’, Amanda. 

I know many, many Clinton supporters who met the demographic for the “Pumas”: white feminists over 50 who were, to one degree or another, disappointed by Hillary’s defeat and infuriated by the misogyny directed her way.  My informal poll of four family members who were Hillary backers:  three solid votes for Obama (with a hope that HRC gets on the Supreme Court) and one voter leaning towards Cynthia McKinney, but admitting she’ll come around by November.

It’s all hype, this Puma-ing.  The anger isn’t hype, mind you—it’s legit and powerful and entirely justified.  But the votes for McCain aren’t coming.

On the other hand, the “Obamican” phenomenon is real.  I’m registered with the GOP, and my vote’s goin’ for Barack in the fall.

Example of effect.

http://americaninitaly.blogspot.com/2008/06/riverdaughters-reply-to-hounds.html

I read a great post today over on the Confluence, by Riverdaughter. It perfectly describes the feelings of many, many Hillary supporters, and PUMA’s.

Saturday: Ed, you’re making this too easy
Posted on June 28, 2008 by riverdaughter

Bostonboomer forwarded the following announcement to me:

  HOUND’S CREDO By Governor Edward G. Rendell
  We have formed HOUND (Hillary-Obama-United-Not-Divided) in response to the creation of PUMA (party unity, my ass — or its cleaned up moniker, People United Means Action).

  PUMA advocated that Hillary Clinton supporters do not vote for Barack Obama just for the sake of party unity. Even though we in HOUND are loyal Democrats, we agree that no one should cast a vote for President because of a desire to achieve party unity. We believe Sen. Clinton supporters should vote for Sen. Obama because, as Hillary herself said so forcefully and poignantly in her great speech a few Saturdays ago, the best way to achieve the changes she has fought so hard to bring to America, and on which she based her campaign, is to support Sen. Obama, whose policies are almost identical to hers.

——-

technorati chart

http://www.technorati.com/chart/party+unity+my+ass?language=en&authority=a4

This is the answer to our problem.

Those are the people who handed George W. Bush the election in 2004:  55 percent of white women voted for him.

Women! What a resource. Is there anything we can’t blame them for?[1]

Mnemosyne, I had actually heard that a sizable number of white men voted for GWB in 2004, too. Of course, it can’t be anywhere near 55 percent of them, or you’d have said it was them who handed him the election. Maybe you have a rough estimate, though?

[1] No, it’s okay, I get what you really meant, of course. You mean that men aren’t responsible for their GOP votes, because they always vote that way, and if it’s predictable that men will do a bad thing, we treat it like the weather. Only women can be held accountable.

I have to say Riverdaughter’s response to Ed Rendell is rather stupid and illogical.

I want to draw your attention to the first one, which implies that the PAC was formed to support Clinton during the primary run.  But if you look at the date on the PAC form, the PAC was registered on 6/3/08.  Clinton officially dropped out on 6/7/08, but for days before, it was basically known she was out.

6/3/08 was the date of the last two primaries, MT and SD.  She wasn’t out yet. 

Part of the rationale for organizing these kinds of groups was specifically to encourage Hillary not to bow to the pressure of the end of the state-by-state primary season—but rather to take her fight all the way to the convention, make her case to the superdelegates, and sway enough of them to get the magic number.

So by that standard it would be true, strictly speaking, that an organization formed on 6/3/08 was “formed to support Clinton during the primary run”—because on of the raisons d’etre for the organization was to declare that the race wasn’t over yet, and it wouldn’t be until the convention itself.

Also, a McCain 2000 supporter isn’t necessarily a GOP ratfuckologist.  My in-laws in New Hampshire LOVED McCain in 2000, and in 2008 the women voted for Clinton (the men opted for Obama).  A lot of the fan base for McCain 2000 prided themselves on their no-nonsense attitudes and well-tuned bullshit detectors.  (Most of the media STILL sees him that way.)  So the PUMAPac person having contributed to McCain 2000 isn’t necessarily proof that she’s a diehard Republican, because that cycle’s version of McCain was all about distancing himself from diehard Republicans.

Long story short, I think it’s quite possible for someone to give money to McCain in 2000, genuinely support Clinton in 2008, and genuinely prefer McCain to Obama in 2008, without skulduggery.  They like pragmatism and experience, hate slickness, and aren’t particularly ideological.

Now, is it likely that a person fitting this description is also a self-described feminist?  I find that harder to believe, myself, but I suppose it’s possible, especially remembering the moderate noises of McCain 2000 (who seemed to suggest he was pro-choice, wasn’t at all a God-squadder, etc.).

Is it just me, or does Silver Swan sound a lot like squashed lemon?

The last polls I saw showed that Obama was doing worse among white men than among white women. It’s only a very, very small group of white women - older women from the suburbs, who are already the women most likely to vote Republican than any other group of women - that is likely to support McCain over Obama.

Not only is this story contrived; it’s playing sleight-of-hand. It’s creating divisions amongst Democrats while leading your eyes away from the white male demographic Obama needs more support from.

The ones I’ve heard from, such as in the previous thread about this (other than my aunt, who has apparently decided Obama is racist) feel (or felt; I’m not hearing much about it lately, but then, I’m not really looking) that because some of the Obama fanboys were sexist, the thing to do is “teach the Democratic party a lesson,” and make the Democratic party “earn their votes,” and… of course the way to do this is to make it easier for McCain to win…? One wonders when the Democrats would then have time to learn any lessons or earn votes while trying to counteract or work with McCain, or just how grateful they are supposed to be to the contrarians for opening their eyes and making this great sacrifice on everyone’s behalf, but one does not receive an answer. These are all bloggers I’ve read before, some for quite some time, with whom I usually agree on other subjects, and they are all feminists.

I certainly do not like the way sexism has been excused or ignored during this campaign, but I don’t see how the logical answer is to vote for a man, or make it easier for this man to win, who (to name one thing) has called his wife a “trollop” and a “cunt” in front of others (I’ve actually seen that compared to Obama calling a random woman “sweetie,” as if the two incidents were more or less the same thing and the Obama incident was slightly worse).

They like pragmatism and experience, hate slickness, and aren’t particularly ideological.

How is such a person gonna vote for McCain? Is starting “at least one more war in the Middle East”, and staying in Iraq for 100 years pragmatic?

Simple, atheist—just decide that he doesn’t really mean it, or that it would weigh on his conscience all the while.  That’s what all the McCain-moonstruck pundits regularly do.

All the McCain 2000 fans have internalized the idea that he sometimes feels forced to say things that make other people happy, but he does it grudgingly, and deep down he knows the real score and is on the right side.

I think a huge amount of McCain ‘08’s appeal derives from people who haven’t been paying attention to anything he’s said this time around.  He’s still coasting on the Maverighteous~! ‘00 campaign.  That’s when McCain (TM) was born, which has very little to do with actual opinions held or policies proposed or advanced by John Sidney McCain III.

Oh, hell. I thought if even Lambert who hated Obama with the passion of a thousand burning suns was going to vote for him, that there was unity, but obviously this is not the case. And the idea of Obama giving up his Michigan delegates when it can be shown that the “uncommitted” delegates who cast a vote fair and square meant to vote for him is absurd.

I am starting to get worried again. Even if the PUMAs are not real there may be enough people who will just stay home.

I should add, in case it wasn’t obvious, that I’m not talking about my own views on Obama vs. McCain.  I’ll vote for Obama, though I suspect that he’ll disappoint a lot of people to his left—like Bill Clinton did, as my garage full of The Nation magazines from the ‘90s will amply document.  I’m just trying to get inside the head of the for-real person who prefers both Hillary Clinton and John McCain to Obama. 

And IMHO voting McCain to spite the sexist media makes about as much sense as taking up smoking to get back at the tobacco companies.

People keep saying that Obama will be a disappointment but we on the left have a tendency to think that once we win the office then everything will follow. We have to put his feet to the fire. You think FDR made those changes voluntarily. NO.  It was the people that was driving the agenda.

Since the latest poll shows Obama with a 16-point lead in NJ the Obama people will probably not be spending a great deal of effort to wine and dine any individual voters as of now. The poll is 49% Obama, 33% McCain. That is a lot of undecideds but Bowers has moved the state to “Solid Obama” as of today.

Wow. Talk about not respecting women, treating them as idiots, and attributing all sorts of failings to them, moral and aotherwise, because they don’t believe and act as you think they should.

PUMAs exist, and they have a few darn good reasons for wanting to vote as they do, not the least of which is that they don’t owe their vote, or anything else, to anyone.

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/

When I read all the insults on here against Clinton supporters, and remember the insults against HRC made by Obama supporters, it makes me smile.  Because I hope you keep up this attitude, and that you continue with your vile, condescending, smug drivel all through the general election.  Then I hope you keep wondering why people didn’t want Obama to win.

You have no idea how you sound.  You can call us racists, call the Clintons racist, and then wonder why we don’t join you.  You can assume we have no clue about our own self interests, are hysterical, stupid, etc.  I understand this makes you feel safe and powerful.  You can assume we don’t exist, don’t know what we are doing, that we are liars. Go ahead.

I don’t think Obama is a good candidate.  I am, and have always been, a liberal.  I’ve never voted for a republican candidate.  You can try to shove him down my throat, you can insult me, you can shout me down, ignore me, misinterpret me, silence me.  But you can’t make me vote for him.

You told me he was something new, something different.  He isn’t. I don’t trust him on any major issue I care about.  When he won the nomination through misogyny by proxy, and then told me to get over it, I did not get over it.  When he sold out the constitution, I didn’t get over it.  When he sells you and your ideals out, you can choose to continue to support him.  You might be happy he’s elected, you might not care about his actions and his betrayals of real principles.  But I will still care.

You can’t win with me.  I see him and what he does, and I won’t be bullied into submission. 

I’d rather the blows against my beliefs come from someone who doesn’t pretend to be on my side.  I’m not voting for McCain, but I’ll be glad if he wins, if only to hear the gnashing of your teeth.

” Is it just me, or does Silver Swan sound a lot like squashed lemon?
Lindsay Beyerstein on 06/29 at 12:08 AM “

that would be me.
I suspect you don’t like what I conclude, but I post what I see. (It is a very flawed statistic.) but I can only see what’s on the web, and guesstimate the readers. Yes, looking at blogroll, the three easiest to identify groups around PUMA groups are McCain, white older white feminists, pro israel. (about 4/2/1, ratio) at 200K google. it’s a medium blog activity. Not just a bleep.

I post all tools and methods. You can redo it and correct my conclusion.

(or do you want to argue about Israel position in foreign policy in regard to this election. I assure you I know what I am talking about and I can bring reasonable links to back up my assertion, as DJA can attest)

You have no idea how you sound.  You can call us racists, call the Clintons racist, and then wonder why we don’t join you.  You can assume we have no clue about our own self interests, are hysterical, stupid, etc.  I understand this makes you feel safe and powerful.  You can assume we don’t exist, don’t know what we are doing, that we are liars. Go ahead.

Don’t mind if I do, you big fat liar!

FAKE! FAKE! FAKEY FAKEY McFAKEPANTS!!

I’d rather the blows against my beliefs come from someone who doesn’t pretend to be on my side.  I’m not voting for McCain, but I’ll be glad if he wins, if only to hear the gnashing of your teeth.

F-A-A-A-A-A-K-E !!!

“Oooo, Riverdaughter is a “creative class” unaffiliated. Well, we must really ask her to do a round of golf with us or share a latte.” I will be pampered and courted and made to feel better than all of you losers who comment on this blog.

“Round of golf”; “share a latte”?

Is it just me, or does that sound remarkably like Rove’s depiction of Obama as the snide guy at a country club?

Anyone who supports McCain when their position on the issues is closer to Obama’s is a fool or a racist.  Now if your position is closer to McCain’s anyway, that’s fine, vote your conscience.  If you voted for HRC b/c she was a woman despite her position on the issues, it makes perfect sense for you to be angry she didn’t win and then vote for McCain, since you only voted according to gender in the first place.

But anyone with liberal ideals simply cannot vote for McCain on the issues.  His positions mirror Bush’s.  He’s one of the Keating 5.  He changes his answers 360° within a week.  He’s anti-Roe.  He’s violated his own ethics laws.  He’s a tax deadbeat and a corporate tool.  He’s not a maverick independent, if he ever was.

Someone with liberal ideals cannot be true to them and vote McCain.  Obama may not be the progressive candidate we deserve, but he’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative.  He is black and McCain is white, but voting that way isn’t voting for liberal ideals anyway.

In this era of Faux Noise, it’s hard to get to the issues, but when you put their positions up and compare, there is a difference.  Electing Obama and electing progressive Democrats to back him is the only logical behavior to support liberal ideals.  I believe that women have brains and know how to use them.  I find it very hard to believe that a woman who is a feminist and a liberal would ever really vote for McCain.  I can see a protest vote for Nader or HRC, but not for McCain—at least not out of a sense of outrage over betrayal of liberal ideals.

Unless you want to burn it all down and salt the earth to start over…

Always said it and I’m still saying it, this is a bullshit issue concocted for political effect.  Ignore these trolls.

Wikileaks published what appears to be a McCain campaign strategy memo organizing Clinton for McCain meetups. The document hasn’t been conclusively authenticated, but it’s worth a look.

Fourteen million people voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. Conventional wisdom had it that Clinton supporters skewed conservative. So, it’s not all that surprising that a certain percentage of former Clinton supporters would gravitate towards the McCain camp, even without outreach from the Republicans. If even 1% of those voters went over to McCain that would be 140,000 PUMAs. Not enough to make an electoral difference, but enough to provide a hundred and forty thousand anecdotes and a fair number of blog posts.

A tiny but non-trivial minority of Hillary voters in the primary were Republicans participating in Operation Chaos, Rush Limbaugh’s plan to hurt the Democrats by drawing out the primary. If they cared enough to vote for HRC in the primary, I’d expect them to keep playing along in the general.

I don’t have data on this, but there must have been a certain number of Republican women who switched to Hillary because they liked the idea of a woman president. I’d expect those people to be the leading PUMAs—folks who would have backed McCain all along if it hadn’t been for Hillary.

If I were the McCain camp, I’d be courting these people and doing my best to create the self-fulfilling prophecy that Hillary Clinton supporters are defecting to McCain in large numbers.

This is good research on Darragh Murphy, although I’m not sure that a donation to McCain in 2000, when he was running against the Walking Disaster in the primary, is all that damning. Why no one in the MSM bothered? See my piece on Russert in the Nation last week.
This article, which was called to my attention from elsewhere, did however motivate me to look at the PUMA type comments on my recent article in the Washington Post, “Looking to the Future, Feminism has to Focus” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603494_Comments.html# .
Unlike the findings in this article, the PUMA type commenters, drzimmern, hazwalnut, msakel, and several others, have commented elsewhere and all during the primary—in the Post, the Times’s Caucus, Salon and the like. This is not to say that there are more than a noisy six PUMAs in the forest, but as a factual matter purely I wonder if it is a mistake to believe that all such commenters are a creation of some Republican opposition machine.

“Fourteen million people voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. Conventional wisdom had it that Clinton supporters skewed conservative. So, it’s not all that surprising that a certain percentage of former Clinton supporters would gravitate towards the McCain camp, even without outreach from the Republicans. If even 1% of those voters went over to McCain that would be 140,000 PUMAs. Not enough to make an electoral difference, but enough to provide a hundred and forty thousand anecdotes and a fair number of blog posts.
Lindsay Beyerstein on 06/29 at 10:23 AM “

what bothers me is television. That feeds into the puma web. Had television not involved, the late june spike (see technorati, icerocket) would not happen. The spike seems to last about 2-3 days. So not very widespread aside from top 4 puma blogs. If I have to make wild guess, probably this involved 1-300K readers. But something is definitely sustaining PUMA. Talking overall web sketch, this is not a bleep. google’s blogsearch keep indicating several new blogs are being created daily (obviously paid bloggers. near zero usefulness, only an indicator how many people are involved, not amount of readers. )

Most common subtext I find: Incompetent black man, sexism stole Hillary’s chance, related to zionism.  (The rest are combination of those or simply GOP spam blog, rehashing key items)

see here:
http://www.technorati.com/search/party+unity+my+ass?authority=a4&language=en
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=party+unity+my+ass&btnG=Search+Blogs

I for one think, this might have effect if played long enough in states such as PA, IN, OH, MO. If not flipping vote to McCain, at least create discontent so reagan dem voters stay at home.

6/3/08 was the date of the last two primaries, MT and SD.  She wasn’t out yet.

But she had already been resoundingly trounced, and was expected to concede within the week.  She actually had to issue press releases to the effect that she did not plan to concede that night, even though there was massive evidence that her campaign was in the process of shutting down operations (not scheduling further appearances, sending staffers home, etc).

I love how our collective media-cycle attention span now apparently lasts less than a month.  What are you guys talking about?  NOBODY knew Clinton would concede the first week of June, even 4 days prior!  We have always been at war with <strike>East Asia</strike> Eurasia!

I’ve been slowing down to gawk at this car crash for a while now and I really think Silver Swan hit the nail on the head above.  It’s internet groupthink, a sociological phenomenon we’ll surely being hearing a lot more about in the future.

Mnemosyne, I had actually heard that a sizable number of white men voted for GWB in 2004, too. Of course, it can’t be anywhere near 55 percent of them, or you’d have said it was them who handed him the election. Maybe you have a rough estimate, though?

Way to miss the point.  I’m saying that the 55 percent of white women who voted for George Bush in the last election, are not Democrats.  They’re Republicans. They may have slid towards Clinton because she was a brand name they recognized, but they’re Republicans, so of course they reverted back to their own party once Clinton was out. 

[1] No, it’s okay, I get what you really meant, of course. You mean that men aren’t responsible for their GOP votes, because they always vote that way, and if it’s predictable that men will do a bad thing, we treat it like the weather. Only women can be held accountable.

Uh, no, I’m pointing out that the trend over the past few years has been for white women to start becoming more conservative and going Republican the same way white men have, and probably for the same reasons.  If you want to shut your eyes to that fact and insist that white women voters are all pure at heart and vote solely on the merits, unlike white men, be my guest.

Again, a majority of white women voted for Bush in 2004.  Why are people so surprised that the same group is saying they’ll vote for McCain?

”..but as a factual matter purely I wonder if it is a mistake to believe that all such commenters are a creation of some Republican opposition machine.”

Well, OF COURSE NOT.  An effective rat-fuck attack has to eventually take on a life of its own w/poor deluded idiots (Lenin was good at that, no?), so the head rat-fuckers can move on to other enterprises.

Leverage, baby, leverage: those operatives can’t do all the heavy lifting themselves.

(I DO like how they just CAN’T stop themselves from ruining it by giving it such an obvious acronym.  Thank Gods for their self-defeating stupidity.)

I am starting to get worried again. Even if the PUMAs are not real there may be enough people who will just stay home.

4jkb4ia

I wouldn’t worry that much, 4jkb4ia. This astroturf scheme may rope in a few gullible people and convince them to vote for McCain or sit this one out, but I don’t see this meme having a very large effect. The internet still isn’t powerful enough for that yet. Luckily.

It’ll be an interesting laboratory to see how these astroturf operations work. We should focus on finding out interesting and useful facts, and strategies for dealing with this kind of horseshit in the future.

There’s no question that the McCain campaign is courting Democrats. It even has an official outreach program on the campaign website, Citizens For McCain: Democrats and Independents for McCain, a group headed up by none other than Joe Lieberman.

There’s no question that FOX News is giving a platform to self-proclaimed Clinton-to-McCain groups like Darragh Murphy’s PUMA. If FOX is paying attention to self-proclaimed Demcrats, you can it’s out of solicitude for McCain’s electoral fortunes first and newsworthiness a distant second.

Here are the remaining questions: What percentage of vocal self-proclaimed Clinton supporters for McCain ever really backed Clinton? How much help are these C4M groups getting from the Republican party, McCain 2008, or Republican-allied surrogate groups? How much help are they getting from grassroots Republican activists independent of the party?

“I’m saying that the 55 percent of white women who voted for George Bush in the last election, are not Democrats.  They’re Republicans. “

Not necessarily. Some of them may be Independents. Plenty of people split their tickets.

George W. Bush only lost women by 3 points in 2004. He lost them by 11 in 2000. Bob Dole lost them by 14 in 1996. What is forgotten about the 2004 election is that Kerry did better among men than Clinton or Gore. For all the hot air about Kerry and Edwards not being manly enough, they did a remarkably good job of closing the gender gap among men. The problem is that Bush more than made up for it among women. How? I don’t know.

The gender gap appears to be back with a vengeance for this election. McCain has a large lead among men, Obama has a larger lead among women. The idea that Obama will have any trouble winning women is a myth. Women are the people who are giving him the lead in the polls.

I also think Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” is overrated.  Yes, plenty of former Bush voters voted in the Democratic Primary. Most of them voted for Hillary Clinton. However, there are several explanations that don’t involve Rush or the VRWC. 

1. The Republican race was settled on Super Tuesday. The Democratic Primary was the only game in town after that.
2. Some of these voters are Independents, not Republicans.
3. Hillary Clinton is the more moderate candidate, Barack Obama is the more liberal candidate.
4. A moderate Independent or a Republican with nothing better to do on election day would choose Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama because Hillary was the more conservative of the two candidates. 
5. Finally, Republican’s aren’t exactly confident about McCain and many are far less worried about Clinton than Obama.

We exist. We have large numbers. And we are Democrats. If you weren’t worried about it why write about it? Go ahead and believe that this is a “Republican thing”, a “sore loser thing”, or a “mentally ill thing” if it makes you feel better.

However, maybe you should spend some time trying to ascertain your chosen one’s positions on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, NAFTA, rogue dictators, handgun laws, FISA, public financing, Wright, HIS GRANDMOTHER, etc., since they seem to be changing on an hourly basis.

Our rejection of your candidate is a stance of country before party. Period. You can go back to your juvenile insults, name calling, and other mature forms of communication now. Spewing vitriol will never change the fact that BO is unqualified to be POTUS.

The following is dedicated to “cultfree”:

Trolling Trolling Trolling
Keep those poster rolling
Not serious, just trollaing RAWHIDE!

Trolling Trolling Trolling
Accusations rolling
Not serious, just trolling, RAWHIDE!

P.S.

Cultfree, learn the proper use of an apostrophe, and chill out with the run-on sentences.

FDR very much saved this country from a Red (or Brown) revolution. Which is why its just silly for the Republicans to call him a “socialist”, since without FDR we could have ended up with real, live, Stalinist type socialism.

Thanks Amanda for the research.

I have been following this PUMA thing at Tennessee Guerilla Women for a while-it seems there are are 3 or 4 commenters(yttk, carolyn bk, woman voter) who repeat the same diatribe over and over again after every post by egalia, that it raised a lot of suspicion for me. It has become a virtual echo-chamber. I must say though that their overtly racist language has been toned down of late. Yes, there are possibly some HRC voters who will vote for Mccain(just like some dems voted for Bush), but the Democratic Party cannot give these unhappy people too much credit.

Their argument always boils down to:
Obama was selected by the DNC
Obama is unqualified
Obama is a racist
The Democratic Party is sexist, gay-baiting and misogynist
The primary process was rigged for Obama, etc
I must confess that I find some projection there. I also find some of this laughable.

I have always believed that true democrats realize that Obama is better for the future of the country than Mccain. But we cannot stop some blogs from couching their hate for Obama in terms that they think others will find acceptable. They are now relegated to some blogs(like NoQuarter) and FOX News!

Clinton-Lieberman-McCain Democrats exist, but I don’t know how many there are. I was surpised that Bush Democrats existed in 2004, but they did, and were able to cancel out the Kerry Republicans.  Offhand, I would say more McCain Democrats exist than Obama Republicans, but well find out in November.

The good news is that they probably won’t remain Democrats for long. The bad news is that they won’t remain Democrats for long.

The Republican Party is collapsing.  Demographic trends are ominous for the “Reagan coalition.”  Younger voters are considerably more liberal. Furthermore, the goals of the conservative movement have largely been met. The original goals of the conservative movement were 1) anti-communism 2) lower taxes and less regulation and 3) social conservativism.  The Berlin Wall has fallen and the GWOT is a poor substitute. OBL is a bad guy, but he doesn’t compare to the “evil empire.”  The Republican advantage on taxes has disappeared.  Nobody likes paying taxes, but after the budget was balanced under Clinton, the 2003 Bush tax cuts were “a tax cut too far.” The estate tax cuts were politically, economically, and morally inexcusable. (Republicans like to say that people should keep more of their own money that they worked hard for. The estate tax cut allowed the children of wealthy parents to keep more of the money that their parents worked hard for.)  Recent cases of the FDA approving drugs of questionable safety combined with several food scares have led people to question the wisdom of any less regulation. Finally, social conservativism has gone as far as the American public wants it to go.  We want the streets of New York to be safe, but we don’t care if the mayor has three wives and lives with his gay friends, or that the President who signed the crime bill into law cheats on his wife. The religious right has been exposed as a fringe movement whose numbers are shrinking daily.

Meanwhile, the 2008 primaries were a defeat for the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party appears to be rejecting the good government of “Clintonism” along with the odious Clintons. The divide in the party is far deeper than Clinton or Obama and has little to do with sex or race.

What this means is that the Republicans are a party in search of voters while the moderate Democrats are voters in search of a party.

The eventual result is that the moderate wing of the Democratic Party will likely be Republicans in 20 years.  The good news is that this means that the country will move to the left. A new Republican party with a significant number of ex-Clinton Democrats and significantly less cultural conservatives will be more liberal than its current version. The bad news is that this new Republican Party will probably be a majority.

Wayward-

Good analysis. So you’re basically saying the political spectrum will look like it did from 1948-1980, essentially a contest between liberal Democrats and Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans? That’d be so much more tolerable than the post-1980 spectrum of the Democrats being the Eisenhower Republicans and the Republicans being, well, completely nuts.

The ones I’ve heard from, such as in the previous thread about this (other than my aunt, who has apparently decided Obama is racist) feel (or felt; I’m not hearing much about it lately, but then, I’m not really looking) that because some of the Obama fanboys were sexist, the thing to do is “teach the Democratic party a lesson,” and make the Democratic party “earn their votes,” and… of course the way to do this is to make it easier for McCain to win…?

I read the same women.  I do not understand their stance on this issue at all.  (Maybe if more of us understood it there could be better dialogue; I don’t know.)  Yes, Obama isn’t the perfect candidate; yes, some of his supporters are awful; yes, he may be “flip-flopping”—but it looks to me as if they’re letting their anger at their own party eclipse their ordinary pragmatic concerns.  Writing in Clinton’s name won’t accomplish a damn thing, except making it more likely that the guy who might fuck you over loses to the guy who promises to fuck you over.

And pace Steinem, Robin Morgan, etc., Hillary Clinton was far from being the perfect feminist candidate anyway.

But she had already been resoundingly trounced, and was expected to concede within the week.  She actually had to issue press releases to the effect that she did not plan to concede that night,

Speaking of short memories… She wasn’t “resoundingly trounced” by any measure. 

Way back in the mists of history, early June 2008, Clinton supporters were still holding out hope that ending the primary season on a winning streak would provide a convincing argument to the superdelegates.  It was clear that neither candidate would end the state races with the Magic Number of awarded delegates.

More to the point, if your cause is to rally behind Hillary Clinton and urge her to fight on rather than concede, it’s entirely in keeping with that perspective to describe your organization as “supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton” even on 6/3/08.

Amanda observes that the PUMA goals imply that they’ve been backing her all along, but they only established the actual organization at the end of the process, which makes it fishy.  My point is that it’s really not fishy at all.  The point was to say that it’s not over; then, days later, after Clinton suspended the campaign, the point was to say that, even then, it wasn’t over.

So the timing of the formation of PUMA is not evidence that this is an insincere operation, much less something sockpuppeted by Republicans and the media to smear “hysterical feminists.” 

Plenty of current and former Republicans have praised Obama and deprecated Clinton, including Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Jon Aravosis, and Arianna Huffington.  Was that evidence that the blogosphere was Republican ratfuckery?  Or is their preference for Obama presumed to be sincere? 

For that matter, if Clinton had prevailed, would those blogospheric voices have gone gently into the good night of Unity?  I can’t picture Jon Aravosis saying, within weeks of the final primaries, that the time had come to get behind Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

wayward:  the 2008 primaries were a defeat for the moderate wing of the Democratic Party

At the hands of the… other moderate wing of the Democratic Party?  It feels like Clinton—by the end of the process, at least—was more progressive on economic issues (health policy, trade, social security, etc.) but more of a hawk on war and foreign policy.  Neither one is down-the-line liberal or had down-the-line liberal supporters.

FlipYrWhig,

Clinton’s winning streak?  That was no winning streak. Obama still won some states whereas Clinton didn’t win any between 2/6/08 and 3/3/08.  It should be noted that Obama benefited from the primary calendar in that period of 2/6/08 and 3/3/08 were states favorable to him. The states that were favorable to her were after that period. Obama had already won the nomination in February due to winning those states in huge margins. She needed to win the Texas and Ohio by 65% to catch up with him.  She didn’t and therefore never overcoming the lead.  The superdelgates waited because they wanted to see if he could hold his own.  He did. As exemplified by his big win in NC and his near win in IN after a weeks of being subjected to bad press and the Wrightmare rearing its ugly head again.

She wasn’t “resoundingly trounced” by any measure.

It was clear several weeks before she conceded that it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination.  As of the Pennsylvania primary at the end of April, she would have had to win every remaining contest with more than 60% of the vote, as well as netting a similarly unrealistic number of superdelegates.  Which any pragmatist could tell you basically means she had been pretty well defeated by that point.  You’re right that Obama hadn’t reached The Magic Number, but it was already inevitable that he would reach it and that Clinton didn’t have a chance in hell of doing so.  At the end of April, no less, more than a month before she actually conceded.

You know, it’s a very hot day, and your koolaid looks fantastically yummy, but no thanks just the same.

“Good analysis. So you’re basically saying the political spectrum will look like it did from 1948-1980, essentially a contest between liberal Democrats and Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans? That’d be so much more tolerable than the post-1980 spectrum of the Democrats being the Eisenhower Republicans and the Republicans being, well, completely nuts.”

I would say that would be a good description of the political spectrum, although both parties may be a bit more fiscally conservative than they were then. Other than that, the biggest difference is that the conservative white Southerners will be Republicans this time.

Yes, this would be vastly preferable.  So how far has the political spectrum moved?

Barry Goldwater was considered “nuts” in 1964.  Yet Goldwater was pro-choice, pro-gay (for his time), and was no friend of the religious right. In 1992, he endorsed a Democrat for Congress over a religious right Republican. John McCain is even more conservative than Goldwater, but is considered a “liberal Republican” these days.

In 1976, Gerald Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. Stevens replaced William O. Douglas, one of the most liberal members of the court. Ford couldn’t stand Douglas because he was too liberal for Ford. When Stevens joined the court, he was considered a moderate to conservative justice.  He now one of the most liberal members of the court. In 1976, William Rehnquist was the “lone ranger”, well to the right of the rest of the court and often on the short end of 8-1 decisions.  Now, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are either as conservative or more conservative than Rehnquist.

However, maybe you should spend some time trying to ascertain your chosen one’s positions on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, NAFTA, rogue dictators, handgun laws, FISA, public financing, Wright, HIS GRANDMOTHER, etc., since they seem to be changing on an hourly basis.

I’d say that applies far more to YOU, since you seem resoundingly ignorant, particularly on oppression issues.

Come on. Don’t insult our intelligence and bring up Wright and feminism in the same breath.

if there’s so much outrage, how come the journalists chronicling it can’t get one real world feminist to sign her name onto the outrage?

There’s Geraldine Ferraro, assuming she counts as a “feminist”—

Which in fairness, she probably does—just because you’re a crude, racist guido from the burroughs doesn’t mean you’re not a “feminist”.

Hunh. I always thought that PUMA stood for “Party Unity My Ass”—and therefore the whole thing was a sly political joke. (Add to that the puma—>cougar thing others have pointed out.) I’m not convinced yet that it isn’t a joke, although I don’t doubt there are former Hillary supporters who don’t like/support Barack. Beware, world, the Republicans have mastered internet trolling. Though perhaps “mastered” is being too generous.

What I am saying is that there’s more than one single set of voters who say they were for Clinton and now will vote McCain

Yes: privileged women who don’t give a rip about Roe or women’s rights, because they are confident that their money and class privilege will get them a special exemption from whatever nonsense McCain throws their or their daughters’ way. And not a few of them are motivated by the fact that McCain is the white guy.

Opoponax, I’m talking about motivations for forming an organization whose objective would be to continue backing Clinton _despite_ everything you’ve just said.  I haven’t said I’m part of that organization, and in fact I’ve specifically said in this very thread that it’s a bad idea.  (I am an Obama skeptic, but like my grandmother says about the infirmities of advancing age, it sure beats the alternative.)

I’m talking about whether it’s possible for an organization to identify itself and its goals as it has and _mean it_, rather than being a front for Republican dirty tricksters.  Yes, it’s possible.  The timeline is consistent with a wish to fight on (perhaps quixotically so).  The McCain 2000 connection is eyebrow-raising but not damning (because McCain still has a [false] rep as a centrist).  And I don’t know why it seems so far-fetched that there would still be a lot of people out there who aren’t ready to shake it off and throw in their lot with Obama—especially because it’s quite easy to imagine Obama supporters holding _fierce_ grudges against a Clinton candidacy; some of them _promised_ they’d never get over it.

So, given all that, why is it so hard to believe in the existence of PUMA?  I’m sure the media enjoys egging it on, and I’m sure Republicans would love to capitalize—through trolling and sockpuppetry online, perhaps—but that’s not to say it’s not _also_ real.

MAJeff, I didn’t think that self-described PUMA people were saying that voting for McCain would be “a feminist act,” but rather that Obama’s flaws went beyond McCain’s flaws.  I can only imagine a Feminists For McCain along the lines of the Log Cabin Republicans:  aware that much of the party despises them for who they are, but approving of some other aspect of the party’s policies.

(The lines blur between “Clinton-supporting women still refusing to support Obama” and “Clinton-supporting women now actively supporting McCain.”  I can readily picture the former.  I have a much harder time picturing the latter without turning it into “hawkish center-right” or, you know, “Republican.”)

I’ve been chatting (or trying to) with D. Murphy and her fellow “PUMAs” over on their YouTube site.

Whether they are GOP flacks or not, they are truly insane.

If you get yourself to a cynical place where you believe that no politician believes in anything she or he says, then none of that would matter.  You might conclude that McCain is saying what he needs to say to get the backing of Republicans—but that somewhere deep down he’s a decent chap who hates bullshit, and you prefer that to Obama’s persona. 

That’s why the media-critique aspect of PUMA is so vexing to me.  Decrying the way Hillary Clinton was treated by the media seems very inconsistent with accepting McCain’s decency and moderation—because that, in essence, is buying a dominant narrative about McCain that was constructed out of whole cloth by a gullible media smitten by his dirty jokes and war stories.  Being mad at the unbalanced treatment of Hillary the media devil and Obama the media darling, with the result of embracing of… another media darling?  That’s a helluva way to spite the media.

I know of such things happening in sports fandom—wanting the team that beat your team in the semifinals to get humiliated by someone else in the finals—but this has real effects on real people.

These women are bitter.  There are bitter people everywhere, like the anti-O slogans in Fla.  That is just mean—spray painted 60 cars.  They even smeared McCain.

PUMA is a coalition of regular people who won’t vote for Obama.  That’s what it is.  There’s nothing secretive about it - PUMA is what it says it is, up front.  That’s worth paying attention to instead of speculating about conspiracies.  The Internets makes it easy for like minded people to connect with each other and form larger coalitions of like minded people.  We’re free to build a coalition and to make a strategic choice, if necessary, to vote McCain in November.  You can speculate about it being just ratfucking by the GOP, but if you’re keen on detective work, the writers and commenters on PUMA sites post on liberal blogs and many were on Daily Kos for a long time, before it became entirely dedicated to attacking Hillary in order to help Obama.

We know McCain is wrong on the issues.  But Obama can’t be counted on to be progressive on the issues either.  Look at Obama’s advisers.  Listen to Obama raise the phony fears about Social Security for his political advantage, after we already won on that issue, look at his flips on FISA and campaign funding.  When has he ever taken a stand unless it was politically helpful to him?  However, in my experience of the primaries, Obama CAN be counted on to inspire his supporters to behave abominably toward Hillary supporters and to try and push us out of the party.  And honestly I trust the Democratic congress to block bad judicial appointments from McCain a lot more than I trust Obama to make good ones.

MAJeff:

They might not be idiots, they might be insane. Remember the Che-style marxist-leninists who thought that you could bring on the revolution by making the evil capitalists act ever more evil? I know some people who are not stupid in a can’t-tie-their-shoes way (degrees, erudition, blah blah blah) who have been firmly predicting ever since December 2000 that the courageous act of voting for Ralph Nader would lead to such a national calamity that it would drive the whole population away from both major parties and into the fold of Real Progressives. If they were just idiots, they’d be less dangerous—they’re like those people with brain damage who have lost the ability to perceive some particular patch of reality.

Here are the remaining questions: What percentage of vocal self-proclaimed Clinton supporters for McCain ever really backed Clinton? How much help are these C4M groups getting from the Republican party, McCain 2008, or Republican-allied surrogate groups? How much help are they getting from grassroots Republican activists independent of the party? Lindsay Beyerstein on 06/29 at 12:47 PM”

1. Very hard to say. I don’t think there is direct poll yet. At best it’s national poll comparing Obama performance against previous candidates around this time of the year.

  But while the McCain campaign apparently believes that women are easy marks for its latent feminist cross-dressing, a reality check suggests that most women can instantly identify any man who’s hitting on them for selfish ends. New polls show Mr. Obama opening up a huge lead among female voters — beating Mr. McCain by 13 percentage points in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls and by 19 points in the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey.

  How huge is a 13- to 19-percentage-point lead? John Kerry won women by only 3 points, Al Gore by 11.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/17/12401/9580

2. A lot of these PUMA blogs are registered under anon registration, and almost new archive. So that is classic “spend money to create spamblog”. Another one, are so called “dem’s blog” receiving money? (I think confluence is connected somehow.  NQ has been known as “for hire” blog. ) ... precise amount of money is hard to measure.

3. don’t know. if the talking point match, there is consistent method that sync with republican campaign strategy, coordination, etc. Then it is part of GOP campaign scheme.

as of now, there is only general awareness in dems blog that PUMA is connected to GOP. but there is no effort yet beyond general talk to counter PUMA. (in term of messaging and fighting for mindshare. Even basic analysis: whoa re these PUMA audience comprises of are still out there. Nobody check what type of audience PUMA has. Thus, it is hard to tailor messaing beyond very general laundry list of woman issues.)

Will you guys get a grip??  The vast majority of PUMAs are Democrats or former Democrats.  We have no relationship to the Republican party.  Many of us don’t support John McCain either.  I am of the “friends don’t let friends vote Republican” variety.
PUMA is a grassroots movement composed of people who will not allow the Democratic party to be subverted by distinctly UN- Democratic practices.  We don’t support Obama because he is unqualified and his selection process makes him illegitimate.  You may feel free to disagree.  You can call us what ever you like.  We don’t give a rat’s @$$.  In fact, when we get called old, bitter, hysterical, unedcated female racists, that tends to harden our resolve.  So, if your intent is to get out votes, dissing us is counterproductive. 
We are resisting because the DNC and Obama have not earned our vote and we do not owe him or the party anything that isn’t earned.  In other words, the “Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?” attitude of Dean, Pelosi, Obama and others is not one we as free thinking and independent adults subscribe to. 
There’s nothing even remotely Republican about that. 
Whether Darragh Murphy ever was a Republican or ever donated to John McCain, for whatever reason (hey, maybe she was extraordinarily prescient and wanted to keep Bush out of the WH), it’s of no concern to me.  She was a commenter at my blog long before PUMAPac and I have no reason to doubt her sincerity. 
Oh, and that guesstimate about how many of us there are?  I’d say that a couple million is a conservative guess.  We are legion and the PUMA movement is spreading like wildfire.  I guess not everyone is handing their votes over to Obama without expecting something in return.

Not every PUMA is pro-McCain. There are many that are just tired of the same-old-same-old going on at the DNC. Tired of listening to “fall into line and shut up and vote the party-line”, or “if you don’t vote for the selected candidate we’ll call you bitter/racist/stupid/whatever”. Every person owns their vote; for those of us completely disillusioned with not only the Democratic Party but with our fellow Democrats. this represents an opportunity to reject what we feel is being shoved down our throats. I’m not voting McCain; but I’m not voting Obama, either. That doesn’t make me stupid or racist. I’ve just had enough, and I’m not going to take it anymore. And that is my right.

I’m a 48 year old grandfather who has been blogging and commenting under this handle for about 2 years.  I was a regular at Balloon Juice until the CDS overflowed and made it uninhabitable.

I’ve been a registered Democrat since 1988.

I am a PUMA.

I am not pro-McCain, nor do I know any PUMA’s who are.  We are anti-Obama.  We consider McCain the lesser of two evils.

It is not about Hillary.  Barack Obama is unfit to be President.  He is not only unqualified, he has disqualified himself by falsely accusing the Clintons of racisim.

There are other qualified Democrats besides Hillary we would support.

I have voted for Democratic candidates since 1972. Cast my first presidential ballot for McGovern in the only state he won. I will not be voting for Barack Obama in that same state in 2008.  I haven’t decided how I will protest the Democratic Party in November yet.  McCain is an open option. I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Republican Party, but I am proud to be a PUMA. Try to discredit us at your own risk. We aren’t going away.

Oh, and Ms. Kate - Obama is a baby boomer, too.

So many lies and nonsense. Bunch of gop toolz ...

this is what “confluence/riverdoughter post”

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012743.php#012743

You are mistaken. They simply have not seen enough resistence. And as a woman Obama’s age, I have nothing to look forward to with him in power. His election may have consequences for the careers of every American woman. It is my responsibility to work as hard as I can to prevent Obama’s nomination. In truth, I would fare better under McCain, given my social status and income. As long as I work for downticket Democrats, I can ride out four years of McCain. But an Obama presidency will set women back 40 years. We need at least one party to fight for our civil rights and equality. With Obama, we lose that while preserving the illusion of Roe v Wade.

So, there you have it. It’s Hillary or no one. I will absolutely not ever vote for Obama. He is inextricably tied to this version of the party and it is my intention to disempower both in any way possible short of voting for the Republican. But if it comes to that, well, so be it.

Posted by riverdaughter at May 31, 2008 06:42 PM

Kate: how can you tell so much about a person’s character from that little paragraph?  That’s f%*&ing;brilliant!  Ok, let me try.  Ms. Kate fantasizes about screwing her brother.  Oh, I have no way of knowing whether you even *have* a brother.  But I find you unlikeable, therefore, you must like incest. 

When did the most important election of my lifetime become aa teachable moment on race?  What made you think that any of *us* need to be shamed into supporting Obama?  Is he a Person running for president who happens to be black or is all you see a Black man running for president?  I see the former.  That means he is held to a high standard just like everyone else seeking the office.  At this point in time, he is unqualified to hold office.  It wouldn’t matter what color he is. 

You guys have a lot of nerve lecturing US about race when you completely dumped on another historic candidate.  Oh, let me guess, you had *other* reasons for objecting to her.  I guess IOKIYAM.

Let’s be clear:

PUMA goal is to undermine and deligitimize democratic party. The totality of their effort cannot be differentiated from GOP effort to weaken the democratic candidate. Since their reasoning are not logical nor close to basic understanding what democratic is about, and they show no problem supporting GOP position. Nor their overall action advancing progressive causes.

Thus they are for all practical reasons and purposes a GOP political action.

Shiny Swan:  This is absolutely true.  Given my economic status and where I live, I would fare better with McCain as president.  That doesn’t mean I intend to give into my baser greedy instincts and vote for him.  In fact, I am NOT going to vote for him.  I am simply explaining that there is no reason for me to vote for Obama and every reason for me to vote for McCain.  Many other women in my socio-econmic group will vote for McCain which should make you worry.  As it is, I choose to vote for neither. 

Nice try.  But so far you haven’t given me one good reason to vote of Obama.  You haven’t told me why he should be the Democratic nominee and not Hillary.  And until you can make a case for Obama, there will be millions of PUMAs who are going to desert you and let you take responsibility for forcing him on us.

“In fact, when we get called old, bitter, hysterical, unedcated female racists, that tends to harden our resolve.  So, if your intent is to get out votes, dissing us is counterproductive.
riverdaughter on 06/29 at 10:56 PM”

no actually, by now it’s fairly obvious what you say around the net, your archive particularly, indicate your sole purpose is to undermine democratic party effort. A lot of what you post shows no good faith asking candidate position in various issues. Most of your position doesn’t even square with your own site “credo”.

for eg. “I believe in social justice. ” “I believe in fiscal responsibility. “I believe in the wise use of our forces.”

what have you got to say about “obliterate Iran”, ” ~$20,0m campaign debt”, or her big fat list of military pork in the budget. How baout her no show/no fight on FISA?

oh that’s right. PUMA.. Lets vote McCain… (but you didn’t say that, right)  What a bunch of second rate republican liars.

PS. yeah, you can’t erase post in this blog. so… try not to make stuff up or lying.

Gee, for some strange reason being insulted is doing nothing to make me want to vote for Barack Obama.

Why don’t you try saying something about my mother?  Maybe that will change my mind.

The problem I have with PUMAs is that they equate the Democratic party with HRC, which is ridiculous.  The Democratic party is the sum of all parts not just one.  Riverdaughter’s prediction of an Obama presidency destroying a woman’s right to choose is nonsensical.  My impression is that they want HRC to run in 2012 because they can’t stand the thought of another democrat in the White House who will pass healthcare.

Ionic Swan:  Can you prove that I am a Republican?  See that’s the kind of thing we don’t allow on my blog.  No character assassinations and no rumormongering without evidence.  So, where’s your evidence?

Hey, my brother is headed to Iraq right after he’s finished with officer’s training.  Wouldn’t I be motivated to vote for the person most likely to keep him out of there? 

And yes, I am intent on getting the DNC to honor the voters, all of them, or the present leadership deserves to purged.  You can call that whatever you like but when I have a choice between the Republcan party and the Republican-lite-libertarian-democrat party, then there *is* no choice and it is my responsibility, along with like minded Democrats, to restore our party to its original mission. 

If you don’t like it, then I suggest you take it up with Dean.

“Nice try.  But so far you haven’t given me one good reason to vote of Obama. 
riverdaughter on 06/29 at 11:44 PM “

so far you haven’t given me any indication you are not a republican job.

You can’t even say what Obama position on various item you purport not to agree I bet. lol.

Let’s take on example, since we are at Pandagon:

1. What is Obama’s position on various woman issue
2. What is Obama various economic/international relationship that will surely relate do national budget and how #1 can be financed.
3. compare that to HRC.

4. compared that to “... short of voting for the Republican. But if it comes to that, well, so be it.” (aka. McCain)

Let’s see how big of a liar youa re, and how fast you will squeal “CRB rules, CRB rules”...

This is Riverdaughter’s statement:

“If I wake up on Nov. 5 to find that Barack Obama, the inexperienced, untested, unvetted, lightweight candidate who we counted on you to stop, if I find that he is NOT my president, I will finally be over it. If the man who called me a racist because I thought he was unready does not take the oath in January, I will be satisfied.”

At the time she wrote that, it meant that if McCain were elected instead of Obama, she’d be satisfied. That’s the only thing it meant—Clinton was no longer running.

Riverdaughter is a narcissist in a snit. She may well have been a Democrat all this time. Who cares? Anyone can be a Democrat. She’s thinks McCain is the lesser evil because, for her, McCain is the lesser evil.

I will never believe that the main point here is “competence” or “qualifications”. Nobody ever gets that excited about those issues. There has to be something else.

Riverdaughter claims two million PUMAS. I find that comforting. Claims like that are always exaggerated, so let’s say 250,000 or so. Most of them were presumable Republican women with a feminist streak or right wing Democrats who would vote for Hillary but not many other Democrats. Let them go.

I do expect a massive anti-Obama smear campaign (BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!! Kim Joong Il!!), and many or most of the sites I looked at seemed completely willing to join in on that. Whether they were originally Democrats or not, that’s despicable.

This should have been a great year. Either we were going to have the first woman run as a major-party presidential candidate, or we were going to have the first African American major-party presidential candidate. Wonderful!

But not both. And whoever lost, there was sure to be someone to want to stink up the place.  In this case, Riverdaughter.

Michelline:  I am not referring to a woman’s right to choose but you must be very young or you would have immediately realized what I *did* mean. 

The damage that has been done to women in this country by allowing the unchecked bullying against Hillary to force her out of the race before the primaries were over and now by preventing her name from being called at the convention is enormous.  If no one is held accountable, then any time a woman gets in the way of whatever a man wants, she will be subjected to the same treatment.  Obama’s campaign has set women back some 40 years.  In this whole primary season, the DNC has exposed the truth about itself.  When push comes to shove, it is not a party interested in championing women. 

But you’ll see.

John Emerson:  There are two possibilities in that statement.  Either McCain is president or Hillary is.  So far, she has suspended her campaign and has not released her delegates.

Most of the respondents on this site, commenting about the PUMA movement, have little knowledge of what the movement actually represents.  It is not “all about Hillary”.

Why would I waste my vote on a man who has only spent about 300 days in the US Senate, has never held a full time job, and who background and associations beg clarity?

Why would I choose to validate the DNC who are the most instrumental in pushing this unqualified candidate down my throat and who stood by and allowed a former First Lady and twice elected member of the US Sentate to be publicly flogged without uttering one word of protest?

Why would I want to grant the DNC with validation of the tactics they chose to implement to assure Obama the nomination by subtrafuge?

Why would I agree with the DNC and the Obama campaign of the racist labels they place upon both Clinton’s when they knew this to be egregious yet stood by in silence?

My vote has to be earned, it is not given as a rubber stamp for the sake of the party.  The party has shown me through their lack of efforts since 2006 that they have squandered my vote by taking me for granted.  They may now proceed without me and many more like me. 

This is what being a PUMA represents.

Plasmic:  You are the one throwing that accusation.  It is up to you to prove it.  I challenge you to prove I am a Republican.  That is, find my voter’s registration, contributions to candidates, connections with the Republican party, meetings, gifts or money I have accepted from them, endorsement of one of their candidates.  The world is not balck or white.  For you or against you.  That’s the way a Republican thinks.  Come to think of it, how do I know that YOU’RE not a Republican?  You have adopted a very Republican worldview and way of thinking. 
Go ahead, prove that you aren’t one.

Well done, author!

Thanx for your efforts.

“Plasmic:  You are the one throwing that accusation.  It is up to you to prove it.  I challenge you to prove I am a Republican.  That is, find my voter’s registration, contributions to candidates, connections with the Republican party, meetings, gifts or money I have accepted from them, endorsement of one of their candidates.  The world is not balck or white.  For you or against you.  That’s the way a Republican thinks.  Come to think of it, how do I know that YOU’RE not a Republican?  You have adopted a very Republican worldview and way of thinking.
Go ahead, prove that you aren’t one.
riverdaughter on 06/30 at 12:10 AM “

nah, reverse questioning won’t work. try different trick.

so to get back. I canot find in your archive your position on woman “issue”, key item people here feels are important. (election is about issue right?) so where is your stand and how you can square it with your current political position?

(don’t bother, I know the answer. more dissembling, parsing, spinning, dancing around. You can’t answer a basic straightforward question here. Because you cannot lie or hide under moderation button.)

PS. nice trick with the flag waving and patriotism crap. Just a reminder this is the internet and you are talking to a “Swan”. Keep it real.

Obama supporters assume that PUMA’s are ignorant racists.

We are neither.

We have given Obama a good hard look, considered everything carefully, and concluded that he is unfit to be President.

As for which of his positions we disagree with, do you mean last month’s or the current ones?

The PUMAs are real.  Why don’t you post some links to actual PUMA sites, and do some reading?  And some real factchecking, rather than aping the ‘netroots’ and their ragingly misogynistic smear tactics?  Yes, it’s a lovely show of research—take some things out of context, do some hyperparsing (you must have gotten that from MSNBC, huh?)

Some PUMAs are going to vote for McCain.  Not because they are sad, ‘low-information’ voters (you must be getting your talking points injected straight from the Obama campaign), or because they don’t know what McCain’s policies are, but as a protest vote.

Some, and I’m in this group, are voting downticket only.  For many and varied reasons.  My first reason, the thing that made me decide back in April that nothing on earth could make me vote for Obama was the appalling misogyny of his supporters—on the blogs and in the MSM, and the fact that the DNC seemed quite content to exploit that.  Marie Cocco, who can hardly be accused of being a Republican in sheep’s clothing, put it best:

“I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars.”

I decided I just couln’t support that, not coming from my own damn party.  Deafening silence indeed.  And just how often did Pandagon interrupt that deafening silence, I wonder?  Early on Obama’s Jesus Christ Superstar following made me uneasy; the sexism put me over the line; and since then, I’ve seen nothing about him to overcome the myriad reasons to not support him; inexperience, having been shoved over the finish line by Dean and Pelosi, the flip-flops on FISA, NAFTA, campaign funding, ending the war and all the flip flops destined to come.

I’ve voted Democratic in every election for the past 24 years; I’ve been a feminist for longer, and probably longer than many of you have been alive.

It’s very clear from the post here that you sought to prove a thing, discarded anything that might disprove it, and blew out of all proportion any indication that supported your theory.  Circular reasoning and circular research at its best.

“myiq2xu on 06/30 at 12:19 AM”

dude, this is no confluence thread. Try posting something worth reading. Forum sidekick is so 90’s

The PUMA phenomenon is real.  It’s a small movement made up of poutraged Clinton supporters like Riverdaughter who still can’t believe their candidate lost.

But the PUMA movement is also about rat-fucking.  The McCain campaign and its fellow travellers realize this opportunity to sow division among the Democrats is too good to pass up.  I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find out that Karl Rove is working on this project; it’s his M.O.

So everyone’s right: PUMA is a rat-fucking operation, and there are real PUMAs.

Visit http://pumacentral.blogspot.com/ if this stuff interests you.

PUMA is a grassroots movement composed of people who will not allow the Democratic party to be subverted by distinctly UN- Democratic practices.

Like elections…

Why would I waste my vote on a man who has only spent about 300 days in the US Senate, has never held a full time job, and who background and associations beg clarity?

Tropes about black men who can’t hold employment. But the PUMA’s aren’t racists. Gotcha.

Sickening.

PUMA is a useful group for gathering those who are independent thinkers, have connected the dots about Obama (before the Republicans do it starting after the presumptive is selected by the super delegates), and have a distaste in their mouth regarding the way the caucuses were gamed and two states that would have be in the column for Hillary were purposely held back so that Obama could appear to be in the lead. Obama’s lead in delegates comes from 1.2 million voters in caucus states versus Hillary’s 34.5 million voters in primary states.

The DNC merged with Chicago immediately after Hillary was forced to suspend her campaign. It was planned months before, just as the date that the nominee is to deliver the acceptance speech, the anniversary of MLK, Jr.‘s “I have a dream” speech.

Those of us who volunteered and made contributions to the non-chosen candidate were hoodwinked and bamboozled by the DNC. We deserve our money back. As for time, it is forever lost but it was worthwhile working for a candidate who would have been the best president in my lifetime (after Bill Clinton).

Hillary, similar to Teddy Kennedy but with more delegates, planned to go to the Convention as was her right. Pelosi switched from pushing the candidate with the most votes to the one with the most delegates…whatever would catapult the unqualified candidate who will be under her tutelage.

I have been a lifelong Dem who votes, contributes, and volunteers. I won’t vote for Obama, nor contribute a cent to his campaign. He has not done anything for his constituents that I can determine, but helps those who can provide him campaign contributions. His spiritual advisors and patrons are not going to win votes in Middle America. The fact that the media has been selling him is also suspect. It sold Bush over Gore and Kerry, the Iraq War, and Obama over Hillary. If it doesn’t shift to Maverick McCain, we have something to really worry about. Who is this Obama? He is kind of befuddled when not reading off teleprompter or notes. Hillary cleaned his clock in the PA debate, and now he is afraid to take on McCain in town halls. Substance can’t be manufactured.

If Obama is elected, then the country deserves another empty suit. My mother and brother can’t vote for him either. Not qualified. We were thrilled that finally the Dems had a contender of consequence, but the DNC selected the other—-the one with more Wall Street money to buy the super delegates.

have a distaste in their mouth regarding the way the caucuses were gamed and two states that would have be in the column for Hillary were purposely held back so that Obama could appear to be in the lead.

I guess this is what “independent thought” looks like when you rely on others to do it for you. So let me get this straight - running primary caucuses by the same precise mechanisms that have always been used, and were specifically approved by all the nominees including Hillary Clinton, constitutes “gaming”; holding two deeply broken and unrepresentative primary elections, including a North Korea-style election with only one name on the ballot, and then counting their results long after the DNC publically announced that they would and could not, that’s fair?

Lemme sum it up - states using their traditional method of primary polling: unfair. North Korea-style elections with one name on the ballot: totally fair. Is that about right, CB?

Remember when Obama said that he was confident that he’d be able to pick up the votes of everyone who voted for Hillary, but he didn’t think that she’d be able to pick up the votes of everyone who voted for him?  Isn’t that a sign that the man himself envisioned a group of supporters who would have a hard time getting behind the nominee?  There’s _no way_ that people would be dismissive of Obama-supporting holdouts.  So I don’t see why it’s supposed to be such an affront when it happens in reverse. 

(I don’t know if the Obama holdouts would talk about voting for McCain as a more progressive choice, but I haven’t thought that was a particularly significant strain of PUMA either.  It strikes me as a manifestation of the feeling “I don’t like this nominee and I just might stay home in November,” which is something we all heard _a lot_ from both the Obama and the Clinton sides.  We probably would have heard it from the GOP camps too; I hear that conservatives and the Christian right don’t much like McCain, so are there disgruntled Romneyites and Huckabites out there?)

MAJeff: His flip on torture pretty much put that in the ground, didn’t it?

Would that it were so.  Richard Cohen has explained that McCain’s own torture experience gives him a get-out-of-jail-free card he can always play.  No matter what he actually does or says, he has that “brand” (ack, market-speak) to pull him through.  He’s a no-nonsense world-weary smartass who plays by his own rules, see.  Or, wait, is that Bruce Willis as _John McLane_?  It’s easy to get confused. 

His election may have consequences for the careers of every American woman.

This is absolutely batshit.  How on earth? 

It is my responsibility to work as hard as I can to prevent Obama’s nomination. In truth, I would fare better under McCain, given my social status and income.

So you are, in fact, a fairly privileged white woman; you can ignore the real policy differences between the parties, and that’s why you’re helping a Republican to win because your preferred candidate (a privileged white woman) did not get the nomination.  Gotcha.

As long as I work for downticket Democrats, I can ride out four years of McCain. But an Obama presidency will set women back 40 years. We need at least one party to fight for our civil rights and equality. With Obama, we lose that while preserving the illusion of Roe v Wade.

Lose that? 

I don’t think you’ve had it for a while.  The Democratic Party has been remarkably docile these past years. 

At least Nader was genuinely different from Gore on policy issues.  This is…wow.

PUMAs do exist.  In very large numbers.  Many of us are progressive, former democrats completely outraged by the “democratic” party’s selection for (presumptuous if not presumptive) nominee of a person lacking absolutely any qualifications to be our president over the far superior candidate with more experience and more votes.  Some PUMAs are moderate democrats rather than liberals like me, and can’t support a candidate who, at least until a couple of weeks ago, was as far left as George Bush is right.  In fact, I think what we all have in common is that most of us see BO as the mirror image of George Bush.  So, far a variety of reasons we all agree—BO is a fraud, NO BO.  We will work as hard to defeat him as we would have worked to elect Hillary.  PUMA! NObama! Hillary 2012.

Hillary 2012.

In other words, McCain 2008.

You sicken me.

Absolutely—if the choice is between BO and McCain, then McCain 2008.  I don’t see McCain as the lesser of two evils, by the way.  I see BO as the more evil of two lessers.  If you’re supporting BO you sicken me.

Absolutely—if the choice is between BO and McCain, then McCain 2008.  I don’t see McCain as the lesser of two evils, by the way.  I see BO as the more evil of two lessers.

Well, then, why even pretend it’s about Clinton?  You’re a Republican; you support McCain.

Vcat is undoubtedly a Republican rat-fucker.  There’s simply no such thing as a liberal who would work to guarantee two McCain-appointed Supreme Court judges in the next four years.

Go ahead and tell yourself that I am republican (that all of us PUMAs are) if it makes you feel better.  As I said, I’m a progressive.  A liberal.  I certainly was a registered democrat.  Not anymore, that is true.  However, I will never register as a republican and I will instead remain unaffiliated unless the party redeems itself.  And did I say it was about Clinton?  Because it’s not just about Clinton.  And it certainly isn’t about McCain.  It’s about OBAMA.  I certainly don’t wish to support McCain.  However I will never, ever, ever support a fraudulent, hypocritical lightweight like BO.  At least McCain is a person of honor.

easy to see from the comments here why the democrats have such a hard time getting their candidates elected.

me, i’m from florida, so i’m already mad at the democratic party. give me a gun and call me bitter if it makes you feel better. and yeah, save your keystrokes, i’ve studied all those rules far more than you have.

me, i’m somewhere left of dennis kucinich [my first choice] and john edwards [my second choice] and al gore [draft gore!] so i see both obama and clinton as republicans. nice moderate republicans, with social consciences, but still republicans. and earlier this year i’d have been equally happy to vote for either of them in the general.

but then this drumbeat started, and horrors! it wasn’t just men calling for her to quit the race, women joined in! feminist that i am, i think women should mostly have set aside all their other issues and voted for the first viable female presidential candidate. pragmatist that i am, i realize that not everybody will feel this way [i didn’t vote for her in the primary either], but sheesh, you couldn’t at least have let her run in all the primaries first before crowning obama king?

i see you’ve comments here along the lines of she got trounced in the primaries. uh, no. she got 18 million popular votes, he got 18 million popular votes.

it was all those people calling for the woman in the race to just stfu and get the hell out of the way that turned me from an interested bystander into a hillary supporter. seriously, riverdaughter is right, all y’all who participated in that, or let it slide by without comment, you’ve set women back.

so anyways, while i am not calling myself a puma, or giving them any money, i do approve of their aims, and have even gone so far as to suggest we start a national feminist party, twice, and nominate hillary as our first candidate. not that anybody agrees with me.

oh well. i didn’t expect the idea to fly, but it would have been nice to have. i don’t know who i’ll vote for in november, but i’ve promised all my liberal friends that it won’t be mccain. cynthia mckinney maybe, woman, black, and unapologetically left of center.

i won’t be coming back to engage any of you who might disagree with me, but it did seem like with the large-ish readership this blog has, maybe some adult high enough up in the democratic party will stumble over this and get a clue and figure out what they need to do to reach out to formerly loyal democratic voters.

meanwhile, just an aside: obama’s anti-poverty plan sounds nice on paper, but how’s that affordable housing working out?

It isn’t about you. It isn’t about any one of us.
It’s about sending our sons and daughters overseas to die in a stupid, meaningless war based on lies for another hundred goddamned years. It’s about torturing people for no reason.
What the fuck is wrong with you pathetic fucking morons that you would support that? Who give a shit if people called Clinton names, who gives a shit if people called Obama names. It’s about more than your pathetic fucking sensibilities, and you have the blood of a hundred years worth of pointless war on your hands if you allow McCain to be president because you’re to fucking ignorant or racist to prevent it.

Do you kiss your children with that mouth Grendel?  Very nice.  And by the way, if you think that BO isn’t going to shift his shape yet again in the next several weeks and admit that he won’t be withdrawing troops any sooner than McCain then you’re just about as stupid as BO himself.  Enjoy.

I’m surprised they didn’t call it WARTHOG…

Everyone PUMA isn’t a real animal!

Cookie to anyone who gets the joke…

Hey, Simmons. What’s the name of that Mexican lizard? Eats all the goats?
Uh, that would be the Chupacabra, sir
Hey, Grif. Chupa-thingy.  I like it, it’s got a nice ring to it.

However I will never, ever, ever support a fraudulent, hypocritical lightweight like BO.  At least McCain is a person of honor.

You gave yourself away with that last sentence, ratfucker. 

feminist that i am, i think women should mostly have set aside all their other issues and voted for the first viable female presidential candidate.

Even if HC had been a conservative?  I just don’t see it. 

Writing in Cynthia McKinney is nice and all, but McKinney has no chance of winning the presidency, and since the US uses a two-party first-past-the-post system, a vote against Obama is a vote for McCain.  That fact is unavoidable.

Well, you were determined to believe we didn’t exist. And reasoned so deftly that if we do exist we must be Republican men posing as feminists or delusional, uninformed, racist, bitter, nuts, duped; oh here’s a good one: ” Self-haters, classic Freudian repression.”

In truth we’re in large part very liberal, lifelong Democrats. There are a lot of women over forty but we have many young people, men, blacks etc. What we have in common is that we didn’t hate Clinton out of hand nor are we gender or racially bigoted. I think that made us pragmatic about the field of Democratic hopefuls.

Most of us were indeed excited about Obama at first and maybe even tepid towards Clinton. We watched the debates, we read, researched discussed. Most of us did go with Clinton especially when we figured out the others never had a chance. But Obama was the rock star even though he had no resume and got his ass kicked in every debate, so it was no surprise he endured.

However we weren’t feeling him. No substance, over a year to get up to speed on the issues, and then a tentative grasp at best. He gave the same platitudinous speech so many times we could recite it by heart. No, not ready, not by a long shot.

But “grass root” groups were forming in red caucus states and giving him the delegate lead (He admitted at an event in Atherton, CA that they had sprung up on their own, surprising even him). We witnessed an impressive Internet barrage complete with music videos on YouTube and a messianic logo on his website. Chris Matthews had thrills going up his legs just from the sound of his voice.

OK, what’s wrong with this picture? Oh yeah, we had seen something like this before. An unqualified candidate, divisiveness and vitriol from the opposition, an adoring media, big money and unsavory associates. Only this time it was our own party.

Or at least most of it. Don’t you think it’s odd that the red states had such ardent and well organized Obama supporters springing out of nowhere? Or that a corporate controlled media was so in love with the “most liberal senator on the hill? Well we do.

Now, we don’t know if it was Rove (although it sure smells like him) making sure the weaker candidate won, or just rabid Clinton hate, but either way the DNC was complicit and culpable in this concerted effort to foist the junior senator from Illinois upon us. And make no mistake, foisted he was.

Ah but here’s the rub; we’re not playing this time. So we have a choice. Stay home, vote for someone the neo-cons hate or vote for Obama.

None of us will be voting for Obama.

I agree the GOP is no doubt interfering. However I believe they did it by enlarging Obama’s chances to win. That they keep insisting Hillary is the real loser and Obama is obviously the candidate to be afraid of doesn’t mean much to me because I believe they are capable of saying one thing but meaning another.

However it does not really matter who started it. The GOP is capable of screwing with both sides, but the Dems didn’t have to fall for it, and they don’t have to choose now to label everyone who does not agree with them with dirty names. It is like a beautiful woman trying to seduce a married man: the guy who is happily married isn’t the likeliest target, is he? Even if GOP did start the PUMA movement, it would mean nothing except that so many Democrats are very bitter about the way the DNC handled the nomination process. If their goal was unity, they should have designed for maximum legitimacy, not questionable legitimacy.

I’m not a Republican. I’m a liberal Dem and have been for 30 years, but if it makes you feel better to call me one, have at it. I’m just repeating what pundits on even MSNBC have called Obama. It’s a caricature to be sure. His voting record isn’t long enough to earn any title.

But hey biscuits, don’t worry too much, we don’t exist. A figment of your imagination, all two to three million of us so far.

I’m not a Republican. I’m a liberal Dem and have been for 30 years,

If, after the past eight years, you’re not pulling the lever for the D candidate: Congratulations, you’re not a liberal Dem.

A figment of your imagination, all two to three <strike>million</strike> dozen of us so far.

“As I said, I’m a progressive.  A liberal.  I certainly was a registered democrat.  Not anymore, that is true.  However, I will never register as a republican and I will instead remain unaffiliated unless the party redeems itself. 
Vcat on 06/30 at 03:19 AM”

I am a fucking Swan. Welcome to the internet. You can call whatever you want. Progressive even.
But if you vote like republican, reason like repugs, and imagining a world like repug. YOU ARE A REPUG.

You are not even a DINO.

“If, after the past eight years, you’re not pulling the lever for the D candidate: Congratulations, you’re not a liberal Dem. “

How funny! Anyone who can say this with a straight face, is not what I remember a liberal Dem being! It used to be LIBERALS were “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it”. Now it is “vote the way I tell you to, OR ELSE!”.

REAL Liberal Dems believe in freedom, not lockstep.

Give me a candidate better than McCain and I will vote for him.

Yes, I am serious when I say that. I know exactly which issues I care about, and Obama flunks at least as bad as McCain does on ALL of them. PLUS a vote for him = a vote for crooked elections. PLUS a vote for him = a vote for sexism.

My belief is that my old-style, perhaps antiquated “New Deal Dem” goals would be better served by a McCain Presidency and a Dem congress, than an Obama presidency and the total discrediting of the Democrat “brand name”. Sorry you don’t agree, but I really don’t understand why you think that makes me evil, covered in boogers, and dipped in horse manure.

Now, we don’t know if it was Rove (although it sure smells like him) making sure the weaker candidate won, or just rabid Clinton hate, but either way the DNC was complicit and culpable in this concerted effort to foist the junior senator from Illinois upon us. And make no mistake, foisted he was.
meingoldcountry on 06/30 at 07:07 AM”

You can’t even explain yourself in term of basic policy and result of voting, and you want to talk about “stronger or weaker”.

You are voting for a candidate who has 11-0 losing stretch, lie to supporters about possibility of winning, then put the campaign in $20m debt. This is all backed by party establishment and big donors. (very strong leadership, in fantasy land maybe)  SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXECUTE. (that on top of keep lying and connected to big money/status quo)

And now when ask, what specific “issues” and ability to execute, when it comes down to choice between McCain and Obama,  The idiot start spinning and parsing about primary rules.

BECAUSE YOU CANNOT honestly say voting for McCain is even close to progressive causes. (only republican can lie to oneself that far. heck even most republican can’t do it anymore.)

You guys are crazy!  We are PUMA’s.  We are men, women, GLBT, hispanics, AA’s, Asian Americans, Native Americans and we are not swiftboaters.  We will not vote for Barack Obama and we are not racists, hillbillies, uneducated or republicans.

We are millions strong and if you wish to delude yourselves into believing otherwise, that’s okay with us.

Like I said, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I suppose that when Obama is elected, and you then lose even more representatives in the 2010 census because nobody else wants to live in your depressed shit-hole states, it will be his fault - and not yours for continually failing to see that the answer to “not working” is NEVER “more of the same”?

And, like, wow.  Do you really want to represent your candidate that way?  Wow.

This is, like, the biggest argument in favour of PUMA I’ve seen so far in this thread.

As long as I work for downticket Democrats, I can ride out four years of McCain. But an Obama presidency will set women back 40 years. We need at least one party to fight for our civil rights and equality. With Obama, we lose that while preserving the illusion of Roe v Wade.

That’s a key issue there. People who feel as calm as you do about a McCain presidency should act as you do. Those who don’t, whouldn’t.

John Emerson:  There are two possibilities in that statement.  Either McCain is president or Hillary is.  So far, she has suspended her campaign and has not released her delegates.

Obama is at least a 100-to-1 favorite to be the Democratic nominee. If you wake up Nov. 4 and Obama isn’t President, 100-to-1 McCain will be President. And you’ll be happy.

People should click through some of the links at www.justsaynodeal.com. At least half of the sites are dominated by the worst Republican buzzwords, smears and rumormongering, and almost none have any content about any topic other than Obama (and only sometimes Hillary, who after all has abandoned the PUMAs). There’s got to be a lot of Republican fakery in there.

Whether Riverdaughter is a Republican, a mercenary, or sincere isn’t terribly important. At best she’s a weak center-right Democrat thoughtlessly monkeywrenching a party she’s never been too enthusiastic about anyway. Her posts here tend to make me think she’s a moderately sly operative, but who cares? A lot of the rest of the PUMAs look fake to me.

Democrats still have to deal with the angry Clinton supporters, who have legitimate grievances, but they shouldn’t key their responses to this PUMA crap.

And to repeat: it was wonderful that this year Democrats ended up deciding whether to nominate the first African-American or the first woman to be a major-party nominess for President (and probably president). This was a step forward both for women and for African-Americans. But only one of them could win; that’s they way the game is played. You have to be a pretty sick puppy if the only lesson you can get from this is “The Democratic Party Hates Women”.

<i>to be a major-party nominee for President (and probably be elected).

And, like, wow.  Do you really want to represent your candidate that way?

You’re assuming that the Identity Libertarians (“It’s all about my feelings”) and BPMAs (Black President My Ass) are willing to be swayed.

My belief is that my old-style, perhaps antiquated “New Deal Dem” goals would be better served by a McCain Presidency and a Dem congress.

You are an idiot. No one should pay any attention to you. There’s no way that that can be true.

I’m tending more and more to the “operative” theory of the whole PUMA phenomenon, especially after reading Riverdaughter’s responses here.

Angry Clinton Democrats are real, there are a lot of them, and Democrats have to deal with that. Clinton has endorsed Obama and that should help a lot.

The PUMA phenomenon is not real, however. There may be some genuine suckers in the group, but the PUMAs sprang up instantly as a Republican attempt to take advantage of a split among the Democrats. Democrats have to work against the PUMAs by reaching out to angry Clinton supporters, but the PUMAs are mostly fake.

PUMA exists. We are real.
We are real people, not just computer generated bots…

... ok, I’m cracking up, I couldn’t type that with a straight face! Ha.

Anyway, seriously, PUMA folks clearly hate Clinton, because if they truly appreciated her, they’d at least fucking CONSIDER the possibility of supporting the candidate that she does.

So, it’s not unfair to call them right wing tools.

Same here. My conclusion about PUMA:

It’s largely republican operative with few sprinkled heavy leaning right reagan democrats. The atrophied section of the party that should be lobed off decades ago.

At least from this conversation one can strongly conclude: going out and talking about the issue in direct manner should be sufficient to debunk entire PUMA stuff. I would thought there is going to be a more rigorous defense instead of classic bluster, dissembling, spinning.

Second. This group actually give insight to how some McCain supporter work. I don’t know what yet. but this might come handy.

Warm terrorist fist jabs to Arianna for the catch on puma/cougar. And to Amanda and Lindsay and many others for brightening my weekend.

Hey, Paper Swan, the segregationists once were Democrats till we kicked them out.  Sure, Hillary is a little too DLC for my liking (I still supported her up to the end anyway). There may be some genuine PUMAs, but the catchy acronym? The slick packaging? Reinforcing the Republican narrative that the Democratic Party is hopelessly divided? The debut on Fox News?

Is there anybody here who *wasn’t* suspicious?

But one more warm terrorist fist jab to Amanda for doing the work and telling the story.

I totally less than three you wonderful people.

Riverdaughter, I’m bemused by your “We are Legion” statement. Having lived in a brain-washed fundamentalist environment for the first 20 years of my life, I know the quote well. intriguingly, the only people I ever hear use the quote are hard-core fundies… who usually vote for conservative Republicans. Not conclusive proof, I grant you, but interesting.

I’m reminded of the PUMA who came on a week ago to announce that HRC’s endorsement for BO didn’t count because it was like an abused woman going back to her abuser. I don’t understand why HRC can be simultaneously the best thing ever for American as a strong and feminist woman AND an emotionally shattered victim whose endorsements cannot be trusted as considered or valuable since she’s just going “back” to her abuser. Whaa?

Two questions for the self-proclaimed PUMAS:

Would you have voted for John Edwards if he got the nomination? Would you have called him a “lightweight?” He has a lot fewer years experience in elected office than Obama.

And since experience means so much to you, I guess you wouldn’t have voted for Abraham Lincoln. His only experience in office before he became President: two years as Congressman and he had to quit after one term.

And secondly what ISSUES do you think McCain will handle better than Obama and what ISSUES do you think he’s closer to Clinton than Obama?

The PUMA phenomenon is not real, however. There may be some genuine suckers in the group, but the PUMAs sprang up instantly as a Republican attempt to take advantage of a split among the Democrats. Democrats have to work against the PUMAs by reaching out to angry Clinton supporters, but the PUMAs are mostly fake.

That you think it “sprang up instantly” means that you were not paying attention.  The name is a little new, but I saw the phenomenon itself brewing since February.  Folks, you weren’t paying attention then and you’re still not.

Oh, well.

About riverdaughter/goldberry claiming NOT being a racist. .. lol

She was kicked out of dkos, because she made racist remark EVERY 2 minutes. using religion baiting. (Islam, Jihad, etc)

http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=goldberry&type=comment_by&sortby=time&search=Search&count=30&wayback=2628000&wayfront=0

TR lists
http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=goldberry&type=comment_by&sortby=ntroll&search=Search&count=30&wayback=2628000&wayfront=0

see also her dairies
http://www.dailykos.com/user/goldberry/diary

” The name is a little new, but I saw the phenomenon itself brewing since February.  Folks, you weren’t paying attention then and you’re still not.
Mandos on 06/30 at 11:01 AM”“

yeah, but you are canadian listening to iggy pop. Who would listen to you? really .... You already destroy your credibility from the get go. Mr. Kanuckistani Kvetcher

It used to be LIBERALS were “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it”. Now it is “vote the way I tell you to, OR ELSE!”.

REAL Liberal Dems believe in freedom, not lockstep.

Oh, my god, you are stupid.  Nobody is threatening you.  Nobody is going to take away your right to vote for McCain. 

I don’t care what you call yourself; you don’t understand the first thing about liberal political ideology.  You’re repeating a stupid conservative whine about how mean and hypocritical liberals are if they don’t actually applaud you for exercising your right to be stupid.  How much more conservative pablum are you going to shove at us?

Angry Clinton supporters didn’t appear suddenly, but very few of the sites I looked at had been around for very long.

In truth we’re in large part very liberal, lifelong Democrats. There are a lot of women over forty but we have many young people, men, blacks etc.

Nice choice of words there.  You have women, men, young people, AND blacks?  How could anyone question your anti-racist bona fides with language like that?

There’s nothing fake with being a Republican who was willing to vote for Clinton but not Obama. There’s nothing fake either with being a conservative Democrat who’d vote for Clinton but not Obama. That’s the famous centrist demographic. No one has to be a Democrat or a liberal.

But I think that the self-described liberal Democratic feminists who are more comfortable with McCain than with Obama are fakes (or maybe idiots). That makes no sense. When they also participate in Republican rumor-spreading and spout Republican buzzwords (“liberal media”) it makes you conclude that they are Republican operatives.

A Green who would vote for Clinton but not Obama is a bit nuts too, even nuttier than the other Greens.

Again, I recommend that people go to www.justsaynodeal.com and do a spot check.

Oh, my god, you are stupid.  Nobody is threatening you.  Nobody is going to take away your right to vote for McCain.

I don’t care what you call yourself; you don’t understand the first thing about liberal political ideology.

Hope you guys enjoy McCain for Pres. I just know that after we sit this election out, YOU guys can take a turn volunteering to run things, while we laugh at you. And in two or four years, the Democratic party will either be dead and replaced with something else - hopefully something better - or it will go back to being a NEW DEAL party that values the less fortunate, the old, the disabled, gays, latinos, and better manners than you people have demonstrated!

I was proud to volunteer to help elect President Clinton. I was pleased to clean up the mess in the Democratic office the day after he won. You guys don’t know what you are trashing and you don’t know what you are losing. And you call ME stupid?

John Emerson: That they hadn’t been around so long is not itself evidence.  A lot of the participants are people I recognize from other more long-standing blogs.  (Corrente—-although the owner is “hold-nose-and-vote-Obama” now, Reclusive Leftist, recognizable exiles from dKos).

And in two or four years, the Democratic party will either be dead and replaced with something else - hopefully something better - or it will go back to being a NEW DEAL party that values the less fortunate, the old, the disabled, gays, latinos, and better manners than you people have demonstrated!

As in, the party that “ended welfare as we know it” in the States?  The party of “don’t ask, don’t tell”?  Suddenly the 1990s were a cakewalk?

Interesting how you leave out AAs, isn’t it?  (You also leave out women…interesting.)  Yeah, it sure doesn’t look like you’re having a tantrum about the fact that the presumptive nominee is black.

I was proud to volunteer to help elect President Clinton. I was pleased to clean up the mess in the Democratic office the day after he won. You guys don’t know what you are trashing and you don’t know what you are losing.

The thing is, most of the Democratic Party machinery is still around.  It’s you who are trashing the party by throwing a temper tantrum about the presumptive nominee; it’s you who are losing by insisting that people too young to remember the Summer of Love are incapable of leadership; it’s you who are happily looking forward to destroying the party (real mannerly).

“I was proud to volunteer to help elect President Clinton.
anonymouse on 06/30 at 12:06 PM”

and such a good job you have done too. I bet Hillary can’t thank you enough for how effective your work was. (was it as good as your appearance in this thread? lol)

Hey John Emerson—“But I think that the self-described liberal Democratic feminists who are more comfortable with McCain than with Obama are fakes (or maybe idiots). That makes no sense. When they also participate in Republican rumor-spreading and spout Republican buzzwords (“liberal media”) it makes you conclude that they are Republican operatives.”

You’re a guy, right?  And what’s your race?  You have no right to discuss this.  If you’re a black guy and the “democratic” party had selected a white woman with far less experience and brainpower over a far more intelligent and qualified black man, and the media had spouted racist sentiments all the while, then you could comment on that. 

Though of course I have heard republicans refer to the “liberal” media, until I saw them in action this election cycle I didn’t truly understand how severe the distortions are.  Now I do understand.  That doesn’t make me a republican.  There are many of us (liberal, though certainly NOT “democratic”, feminists) who understand that the feminist agenda has got to move beyond the issue of choice.  We will no longer lie down for the abuse so many have chosen to throw our way. 

As I said, if it makes you all feel better to think that we’re republicans, go ahead and think it.  It won’t change the fact that your chosen one and his cronies Dean and Pelosi have managed to alienate a huge chunk of the democratic party (25%? 50%? More?) in a matter of months.

Um, Vcat, I’m a woman and I agree with John Emerson. For what it is worth. I’m also white, if that’s also a required qualification now….

Faye—Uuuuum—it’s easy to see why you’re a Uuuuubama supporter.  Just because you have a different agenda doesn’t mean that there aren’t PUMAs who are liberal and feminists.  Uuuuum, if you know what that means.  And MAJeff—Keep laughing.  We’ll have the last laugh so you might as well just stay down on the floor where you belong.

Vcat on 06/30 at 12:51 PM

Let\‘s be clear:

1. Hillary fails to execute. She built wrong team who came up with wrong strategy.
2. she mis-manage campaign budget. She is worst than Bush in this regard.
3. She lies like there is no tomorrow. (What she accomplished in diplomacy, Her neoliberal stand, valor, pork barrel project, campaign money)
4. She actually defended lobbyists (what a laughable feat, considering the lobbyist can\‘t help her win)
5. race baiting, religious baiting, war baiting, gas tax holiday… (seriously, wtf?) Her klan poll must be down or something.
6. fails to show up on FIA, vote for war continuously and unapologetically.

Before becoming first lady of AR and whitehouse, she is a corporate lawyer. To which the mess trails back all the way to whitehouse, her partner commit suicide.

She has NO leadership experience and it shows during campaign trail. Everything falls apart and reduced to ad-hoc attack when push comes to shove.

That was your \“experience\” candidate.

You know what comes to mind in all this?  Does anyone remember the blog that appeared shortly after the 2004 election—fromasadamerican.blogspot.com?  It’s gone now, but it was this disingenuous screed by a thirtyish white woman who had (supposedly) cast her vote for Bush in “fear and trembling” because she couldn’t bring herself to vote Democratic because Democrats are, like, mean and stuff.

Just because you have a different agenda doesn’t mean that there aren’t PUMAs who are liberal and feminists.

Liberal feminist Republicans!  I’m getting down on the floor with Jeff.

Chorcoal Swan—Lies?  You mean like what your messiah does so well?  Hillary is brilliant and experienced and WILL make a fine president.  If the “democratic” party is as stupid as it seems and follows through with nominating the moronic stutterer then we’ll just have to deal with 4 years of McOld until Hillary wins in 2012.  There are too many of us who will work too hard and we will ensure defeat for the fraud.

Good, Elinor.  You stay down there on the floor with Jeff so we can walk all over you.  If not in Denver, then in November.  PUMAs ROAR!

gordiebird, cute response but by point was to Vcat - that one doesn’t have to be a black male to support Obama… and that not ALL white females support HRC to the death.

The prevailing attitude here seems to be that the “best” (in this case, in many minds, HRC) candidate didn’t go on to the final showdown, so we should vote against the Democrat who displaced her. Unfortunately, the “best” candidate rarely makes it to the primary - there’s always a great deal of politics and compromises involved. I didn’t think Al Gore was the “best” liberal candidate in 2000, but think how much better the environment and the economy would be if we’d gotten him instead of Bush. And, yeah, that statement is directed towards all the people who voted against Al Gore because the Green candidate was “better” or because they were acting out against the Clinton scandals.

Bottom line is that McCain is going to send us to war and appoint SC judges who revoke Roe v. Wade. Obama isn’t. If you care about war and abortion rights, vote Obama. If you don’t, don’t. Taking your ball and going home because HRC isn’t on the ballet won’t solve anything, no matter how satisfying it might be.

Oh the sockpuppetry, the projection (has anyone *here* claimed Obama is perfect?  Or even close?  Because I haven’t seen it), the eliminationism (we’re going to crush you and destroy you), the joy in the idea of crushing the party and helping McCain win…you aren’t liberals.  Nothing about you is liberal.  You are Republican ratfuckers, and repeating the words “liberal” and “feminist” over and over again will not change that. 

And yes, you are racists.  You are racists of the sort who think it’s worse to be called racist than to be subject to racism.  You are racists when you suggest that Obama is stupid and lazy when he is demonstrably neither.  You are racists when you trumpet the number of “blacks” you supposedly have in your PUMA group along with the “women” and “men”; you are racist when you whine that an Obama-headed Democratic Party won’t care about anyone but black people (ever-so-subtly omitted from your list of people the party SHOULD care about).  You are big honking ratfucker racists, and you’re entitled to your opinions, but you deserve all the mockery and criticism you get from real liberals, and then some.

Faye—That I’ll respond to.  I agree the best candidate doesn’t always make it through the primary.  I’ve held my nose and voted for the democrat in the past when he hasn’t been my choice for nominee.  But in every case he won the nomination.  In this case he stole it, or was handed it by a bunch of slobbering wannabees, depending on your perspective.  But your bottom line is a joke.  McCain is going to SEND us to war?  Are you unaware of the fact that we’re AT war?  I don’t trust BO to end the war.  And in fact, I’m quite certain you’ll see his position change (no, really?) in the next few weeks and he’ll admit that it’ll be tough to bring the troops home in the timeframe he’s outlined.  His advisor Susan Rice has already admitted this, and he’s said it privately to Iraqui leaders.  And as for Roe v. Wade, are you unaware of the fact that the SC already has the votes it needs to overturn it?They’re never going to do that.  And in any case it’s a chance I’ll take much sooner than I will rewarding BO and the DNC with the presidency.  How can you possibly know what he would do anyway?  He has no record, and he has no core.

Why don’t you go ahead and tell me why you support him.  What is it about his background, his experience, or anything he’s ever said or done which gives you any confidence that he’ll do what you think he should do?

So if someone calls a black person stupid and lazy that’s racist?  Why is that?  Do you mean if I call an Asian person stupid and lazy that’s not racist?  And why is that?  You are a pathetic, knee jerk, incapable of thinking for yourself, tow the party line, say whatever is politically correct and spout a bunch of ridiculous twaddle moron.  Did you go to Sarah Lawrence College by any chance?

Lies?  ... Chomper on 06/30 at 01:14 PM

yes. as in not telling the truth, making up stuff. Telling make believe story to appear braver than actually was. Or claiming credit for something that was not ones action. Not telling the truth.

I don\‘t care about small fibs. but this is related to national budget, diplomatic position, valor/ability to lead army, and general trade interest. She lies like Bush, because she is afraid being called not having balls. That\‘s why all the big talks about gun and war.  She will put the country in more war, more debt and more beligerent pro Israel diplomatic stand.

Elinor you should get a little more sleep.  You seem like a real idiot.

In this case he stole it, or was handed it by a bunch of slobbering wannabees, depending on your perspective.

“Slobbering wannabees” = voters under the age of 50?

And as for Roe v. Wade, are you unaware of the fact that the SC already has the votes it needs to overturn it?They’re never going to do that.  And in any case it’s a chance I’ll take much sooner than I will rewarding BO and the DNC with the presidency.

So basically you don’t give a shit about abortion rights as against…what kind of bad things do you expect Obama to do exactly?  Because there’s been a lot of whining about the stupid lazy black man who won the nomination illegitimately, but nothing substantive.

Hey Blue Swan—Who was it who managed to piss off the Arabs and the Jews with talk of an undivided Jerusalem recently?  Oh that’s right, it was your messiah.  The same guy who didn’t hear his racist pastor make any controversial statements until he remembered that he had disinvited him to his invocation.  The same guy who supported the DC gun ban until he decided it was unconstitutional.  The same guy who promised he would sit down and talk to McCain about taking public financing until he decided he could raise more money on his own.  Let’s see.  There are only about a thousand other lies of his I could name for you but I’ve wasted enough time here.  See you around.  But don’t forget, former democrat PUMAs Roar!

Hillary is brilliant and experienced and WILL make a fine president.

What experience? Being married? Looking over people’s shoulders?

Hillary Clinton has served less time in elected office than Barack Obama. True fact.

Yeah, I’m really worried that Mr. or Ms. “I’m so left-wing I’m going to help the right-wing candidate win” thinks I’m an idiot.

You are a pathetic, knee jerk, incapable of thinking for yourself, tow the party line, say whatever is politically correct and spout a bunch of ridiculous twaddle moron.  Did you go to Sarah Lawrence College by any chance?

Oh noes!  Political correctness!  Yeah, you’re really sounding like a liberal now. 

I do not tow the party line, nor do I toe it.  Also, I’m Canadian.  Fuck off.

See you around.

Watch out for the sniper fire on your way out.

Elinor and Mike—We may call him stupid and lazy (which he is), and he is of course black.  But the only people pointing that out, and relentlessly I might add, are he and his bots.  No one else cares what color he is.  And I imagine slobbering wannabees was probably referring to the so called super delegates.  They’re the people who handed it to BO.  After all, if the voters were deciding it Hillary would be the nominee.  She’s the one who received more votes.

Vcat, I disagree with your assertion that Obama stole the election - if you are referring to super-delegates, that’s the system, those are the rules, and if HRC didn’t like the rules she didn’t have to run Democrat.

However, even if he did steal the rules, he is still the Democrat candidate we have. Being upset about that isn’t going to change anything. Many people feel (and understandably so) that GWB stole the 2000 election, but we’re still stuck with him.

Yes, we are at war, with many people. Our economy is bleeding, the value of the dollar is plummeting, and troop casualties keep climbing. In the midst of all this, McCain wants to send us to more war - against Iran. Whether or not you think this is necessary, I think we can all agree that what is necessary and what is feasible is not always the same. I trust Obama to keep a level head and to try all available options - and who can argue that diplomacy isn’t cheaper than sending troops at the first sign of trouble? It was diplomacy and careful, intelligent manuevering that got us through the Cold War, and I don’t think a man who goes on SNL to sing “Bomb Iran” has those qualities or holds them in high regard (or dignity, for that matter).

And I completely disagree with the assertion that Roe v. Wade is safe. Just look at the current problems with ambulance drivers refusing service to pregnant women and the Texas SC affirming that it’s ok for a church to physically abuse a girl during an exorcism. I want HRC on the SC to keep that sort of nonsense from occuring. And OB will put her there. McCain will not.

HRC for Supreme Court!

Hey Elinor—You’re Canadian!  There’s another thing you have in common with BHO.  That really explains a lot.

Hey Elinor—You’re Canadian!  There’s another thing you have in common with BHO.  That really explains a lot.

You don’t get to talk shit about my country until you can find it on a map.

MikeEss, it was Indonesia.

Oh, Elinor, I see.  If BHO is Canadian then that’s talking shit about your country.  That says a lot about how you really feel about him.  And as for where he was born, how the fuck should I know?  All we have is a forged birth certificate that he’s trying to pass off as legitimate.  Kenya, Canada, could be anywhere.  But it clearly wasn’t Hawaii…

If BHO is Canadian then that’s talking shit about your country.  That says a lot about how you really feel about him.

You hate Obama; you dislike me; you say our (in his case, supposedly) being Canadian “explains a lot.”  That’s talking shit.  You’re a ratfucker.

And oh noes, Obama’s a furriner!  A furriner with the middle name Hussein!  Yeah, keep telling me you’re not racist.

By the way, did you know “Canadian” is a euphemism for the N-word in the Deep South?  As in, “that jury has too many Canadians on it”?  Maybe that’s what you really meant, huh?

This thread is starting to get towards Sadly No’s epic 2000 comment post flamewar between Corrente Wire.  I love it!

Jeff, when I read “PUMAs roar”, all I could think was “WOLVERINES!”

I just spent a couple hours looking at the “justsaynodeal” blogs. Results: I dodn’t find any evidence that any of them are front groups (i.e., multiple registrations under one name). I didn’t see any suspicious looking registrations. On the other hand, my search skills are only mediocre, and “Domains by Proxy” allows you to hide most information.

All of the sites listed that I checked today were registered this year, most during April-June. One earlier group is focussed on Michigan and Florida delegates. It’s pretty notable that no established liberal or feminist bloggers have jumped aboard. Everyone seems to be new.

I still do not see how a liberal of any kind can be comfortable with the idea of “riding out McCain”. That’s just disgusting.

Until evidence comes in, however, I’m going to softpedal the idea that the PUMA phenomenon is a Republican fake. It may be that all the PUMAs are conservative Democrats, Republican feminists who would have voted for Hillary, independent feminists whose sole issue is the glass ceiling, and people personally devoted to Hillary.

My opinion of the content of the sites is the same as ever. Most of it is smears, rumors, character assassination, and a lot of it sounds completely Republican. A lot of them seem to hope for a McCain victory and a Republican disaster.Sadly, a lot of that is a product of the way Hillary’s campaign developed during the last few months.

If you act like a Republican, and if you vote for McCain, you’ve become a Republican. regardless of what your past was.

Hillary is supporting Obama, and hopefully most of her supporters will too.

Another question: if Hillary Clinton were to announce tomorrow than any supporter of hers who voted for McCain was betraying her and her causes, what would you do?

Ms. Kate (or do you really prefer Miss Kate)—Both of McCain’s parents are/were American citizens, so no matter where he’s born he’s a natural born citizen.  Only one of BO’s parents was a citizen, and his father was not a US national.  So, if he was born outside of the US he’s not natural born.  McCain doesn’t have to worry about this particularly because the senate already addressed it.  You dipshit.

When the Clinton diehards get started on Obama’s birth certificate or Larry Sinclair, how are they better than Republicans?

I’m not voting for Obama and the last (and only) time I voted was for Kerry in 2004. I am a registered Democrat in Ohio. I voted for HRC in the primaries. And I find it flippant and insulting for you to say that women like me are “nuts” and their brains have issues. My brain has no issues, thank you very much—I’m a 23 year old medical student who graduated high school at age 16 with a National Merit Scholarship, went through college on a full merit scholarship and got my B.S. at age 19 1/2 and am now in my 3rd year of med school. My brain is fucking wonderful.

I would actually not have any issues with you calling women like me who won’t vote for Obama crazy if I didn’t admire you in a way—I haven’t even read your book “It’s a Jungle Out There” but want to, and having seen how many 1 star reviews it got on Amazon due to racist imagery, I wrote a 5 star review of the book hoping it would boost its rating a bit, even though I hadn’t read the book yet. Had I know you think women like me are crazy, I wouldn’t have done that.

Anyways, yeah, women like me exist and our brains are fine. Don’t worry about our brains, worry about your own.

I don’t need to prove anything to some random person on the internet because I have proven it all my life.

damn straight i will boast about it, because i have probably achieved more in my life than you have in yours, even if you are twice my age.

and my political analytical skills are just fine. i am voting with my conscience and values- for the third party candidate, not your republican-lite obama.

yeah, I know I’m special. That’s why I’m done talking to you—you bore me too much. Bye!

\“When the Clinton diehards get started on Obama

Hey Mike.  Well said.  You think you’re sarcastic but the truth is you’re very close to the truth.

PUMA Hillary or McCain ‘08, Hillary 2012 NObama

You BO worshippers are truly pathetic.

My brain has no issues, thank you very much—I’m a 23 year old medical student who graduated high school at age 16 with a National Merit Scholarship, went through college on a full merit scholarship and got my B.S. at age 19 1/2 and am now in my 3rd year of med school.

Lots of medical students, and doctors, are nuts. High IQ, but clueless.

Obama is becoming Republican-lite, but Hillary always was Republican-lite. If you want to go Green, OK, but Hillary is the enemy of Greens.

Somebody remind me again who voted for the War in Iraq and who didn’t? I get confused by the PUMA spin, sometimes.

>PUMA is a grassroots movement composed of people who will not allow the Democratic party to be subverted by >distinctly UN- Democratic practices.  We don’t support Obama because he is unqualified and his selection process makes >him illegitimate.

So the candidate with FEWER pledged delegates, FEWER states won (and I’m from California, so I’m even from a Hillary state!), and LESS of the popular vote (percentage-wise and raw totals) should be the nominee?  That would be more Democratic?

>Some PUMAs are going to vote for McCain.  Not because ... they don’t know what McCain’s policies are, but as a protest >vote.

Yes.  Yes, that’s exactly the problem. 

>Can you prove that I am a Republican?  See that’s the kind of thing we don’t allow on my blog.  No character assassinations >and no rumormongering without evidence.  So, where’s your evidence?

*raises hand*  You’re actively—by your own admission—working to bring about a Republican presidency?

>His election may have consequences for the careers of every American woman. It is my responsibility to work as hard as I >can to prevent Obama’s nomination.

Yes!  One of them supported the Ledbetter decision (authored by judges appointed by which party, again?) and one of them condemned it!  Oh, wait… it was McCain who supported it and Obama who condemned it?  Well, bless my soul—I do believe that this election WILL have consequences for the careers of American women.  Dire ones, if McCain gets in.

>In truth, I would fare better under McCain, given my social status and income.

Well, shit, chica, so would I!  That’s what happens when one is, like me, lucky enough to be white, well-educated, and have affluent parents!  But I’m committed to improving America for everyone, not just me and my fellow pink-skinned graduate-degree-wielding engineers.

I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, I’m an Independent. I have only voted for Democrats in the past.  I won’t vote for McCain.  I can’t vote for Obama either, though.  So I’ll either write in another candidate or sit this one out.  I couldn’t have believed I’d ever feel this way about this election.  I thought it was a slam dunk for liberals, and I’ve always been proud to be a liberal.  But it’s the Obama supporters and Obama himself who have alienated me and many others.  While you sit here and stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting insults against us, you are losing.  While you question whether or not we exist, you are losing.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

None of you cared, and in fact you joined in, when HRC was beaten down with misogyny and hatred.  This was coming from her own side.  So you lost many people that way.  And the hypocrisy of the criticisms against her becomes more and more evident when you defend Obama against all the things you hated her for. 

When Obama turns on the Constitution, you continue to say it doesn’t matter, so you will lose more voters.  These are people of principle - principles that you claim to agree with, and that you claim that Obama represents.  But you are losing these voters.  I would think that eventually Obama will cross a line even with you die hard fanatics.  Then you will feel betrayed the way that we do, and then it will be our turn not to care.

I don’t trust him with the SCOTUS nominations, he’s already indicated he won’t defend us there.  He was very close to nominating someone who would have ended our reproductive rights, and he said that didn’t bother him.  The only reason he didn’t do it was because it was pointed out to him that it wasn’t politically expedient.  Getting into power is what he is concerned with, not principles.

I have no idea what makes you think he will do anything about ending the war.  Do you have any reason to believe he can or will do that?  These are real issues.  If the answer to these real problems that I have with him and with his supporters is that I’m a racist, then there is no way to talk to you at all. Which is fine, I’m just watching at this point.

FYI, Darragh Murphy did donate to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

We don’t care where he born, with whom he sleeps or what he smokes. We simply don’t think he’s qualified for the most important job in the world and we don’t like what he’s come to represent for this country.

Vet your friggin candidate. Of course he didn’t vote against the war - he wasn’t in the Senate at the time. But it’s fine with you that he’s consistently voted to fund the war since then. Also fine that he’s obfuscated, evaded or vacillated on every platform issue to which he was forced to respond so far. That he’s surrounded himself personally and professionally with the seediest element in Chicago’s para-political arena.

I mean, who are you people? There are a quite a few here that don’t know the meaning of the word Democrat, but it’s not the PUMAs. 

Call us what you will, stick your heads in the sand if you wish but remember, many of you Obama supporters are just as instrumental in our rejection of him. You made us stop and say WTF. What is it about Obama that inspires your snarky, entitled posturing, your intolerance of other views, your hate and rampant hostility, your complete lack of rational thinking? Hell, you scare us just as much as the Orwellian machine that created cult Obama.

So I guess you’re right, because if you’re the New Democratic Party, I for one want no part of it.

“And the hypocrisy of the criticisms against her becomes more and more evident when you defend Obama against all the things you hated her for.”

“What is it about Obama that inspires your snarky, entitled posturing, your intolerance of other views, your hate and rampant hostility, your complete lack of rational thinking? Hell, you scare us just as much as the Orwellian machine that created cult Obama.”

-Exactly. Even worse are the women who claim to be disgusted by women who won’t vote for Obama, saying that we are setting back women and all that feminism has achieved, by protesting the misogyny in the Democratic Party. Who is setting back feminism, the feminists who point out misogyny or the so-called-feminists who make no protest about it?

The other say on a different site I saw some gung-ho Obama-supporter and self-described feminist go on and on about how feminists who are complaining about sexism in this election are making women as a whole look bad and look like complainers. Then I found out that this so-called feminist is actually a woman who gave up her career to be a housewife and is now channeling all her energy at preventing anyone on this site from criticizing Obama by making melodramatic protests anytime anyone dares to criticize BO and wailing that Obama will lose if people are allowed to voice their dissent regarding his greatness. If these are the feminists supporting Obama, then what’s in store in the future for feminism? The Desperate Feminist Housewives for Obama Association? Maybe some spineless Nancy Pelosi-wannabes will compose such a group, which will then claim that they speak for all enlightened, non-neurotic, “with-it” feminists.

LOL. These so-called feminists make me laugh.

I meant, the other day, not the other say

None of you cared, and in fact you joined in, when HRC was beaten down with misogyny and hatred.

Nothing beat her but herself; she ran a campaign that all but ended on Super Tuesday. She lost to the better organized, better funded candidate who’s shown the better judgment both in the primary and in his political career.

Mike, Mike, Mike what else can we say? He’s a puppet of the powers-that-be. If you don’t know that or if you’re OK with that, I’m stumped. McCain is not Bush. The neo-cons hate him. He’s a moderate at worst. He has a proven ability to cross the aisle. The Democratic congress sucks rocks so far. I don’t know if I’ll vote for him but I know I could without too much trouble.

Biscuits, glad you found it entertaining. But let me have one of your own illustrate my point. Here are his responses to various statements:

“Tough shit. I’m sick of being expected to validate people’s hurt feelings. If you’re in the wrong, you’re supposed to get your feelings hurt. That’s how you learn not to be wrong the next time.

Yes. There’s a word for those people: “stupid.” I have no patience for someone who wants to be pandered to and refuses to listen to anyone who knows more than they do, as if being a willfully clueless assfedora were some kind of noble calling. Those people can go fuck themselves, and frankly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for defending them (unless, of course, you are one yourself, and then you pretty much have to defend them, don’t you?).

First, you don’t have the slightest clue how I’m seeing this. So fuck you very much for that. If you really want to engage in such transparent dishonesty, do it at TownHall where that kind of thing is tolerated.

I want you to explain, in detail, why I should give a crap about people who clearly don’t have the slightest fucking clue what they’re talking about, but still demand that I listen breathlessly to every word that they say. Then I want you to explain how your unenlightened self-interest (and the desperate desire to make sure everyone knows about it) is in any way intelligent or rational.

“I can only aimlessly opine.”
That is painfully obvious.
Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster on 06/28 at 04:23 PM”

Actually, the bots at KOS and Huffpo makes this guy sound like a sweetie.

Bis, hey McCain kissed neo-con ass big time to get the nom this year and he took a big hit in my estimation of him. But he’s far from being owned. That’s what I like about Hillary and that’s what I like most about McCain.

I want a real leader - not another cheerleader the party sends out to give campaign propaganda speeches for years on end like you know who.

And I don’t want GE making policy.

“...which I’m sure is Totally and Utterly Different from some gung-ho McCain-supporter and self-described life-long Democrat going on and on about how horribly Hillary was treated and making melodramatic protests every time one of us suggests that voting for McCain to spite Obama supporters is an idiotic and self-defeating act…”

I don’t think that people voting for McCain are making a wise decision. But former HRC-supporters who are not voting for McCain—-people who aren’t voting at all or people who are voting Green Party- they are not acting self-defeatingly, quite to the contrary.

Obama made a mistake in that he at first chose to attract idealistic people—many college-aged voters are very idealistic. Now that he is moving to the center and flip-flopping, some voters who are idealistic—that is some of the people who liked either him or HRC—are going to choose actions that best reflects their ideals—either not voting at all or voting Green. Politics is not just about the outcomes, it is also about voices being heard. So far the Democratic Party is choosing to ignore or minimize the dissent in their party, something like being in the denial stage of the five stages of grief—-denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.  I predict that as more polls are executed closer to November and Obama and the Party see that it is not going to be as easy for them to defeat McCain as expected, the Democrats will go through the anger phase of their grief, and Obama will start being advised to bring some PUMAs back into the Democratic fold with a speech about sexism in the Democratic Party and more exuberant praise of HRC in order to ensure getting those former Dems’ votes. That’s the bargaining phase. Then what happens next, who knows—but the Democrats may just have to learn the hard way that people’s criticisms need to be giving TIMELY attention, because you can’t win when a significant minority of your party thinks you are retarded.

Just sayin guys, you want to know how some of us could possible vote for him. You don’t have to agree or like it but there it is.

“possibly”

Mike, yeah GE as in George Soros, MSNBC, Google etc. Owns BO I’m afraid.

Proof, bicky, provide some proof.

From the NY Post:

February 2, 2007—SEN. Barack Obama might want to tell George Soros to shut up, now that the Hungarian-born billionaire has equated the George W. Bush administration with the Third Reich. Soros, who spent $26 million trying to beat Bush two years ago, is a key supporter of the media-darling Illinois Democrat’s presidential campaign.

Obama made a mistake in that he at first chose to attract idealistic people—many college-aged voters are very idealistic. Now that he is moving to the center and flip-flopping, some voters who are idealistic—that is some of the people who liked either him or HRC—are going to choose actions that best reflects their ideals—either not voting at all or voting Green.

I know people who regret voting for him in the primaries because of his move to the right, but I sincerely doubt Hillary Clinton would have done it differently.  This is standard Democratic Party strategy and it sucks, but it’s not specific to Obama.  The hostility unleashed at Obama confuses me in that context.

If you really want to engage in such transparent dishonesty, do it at TownHall where that kind of thing is tolerated.

Transparent dishonesty?  Like claiming McCain is a moderate?

Wow.  You people are so stupid.  You truly deserve BO.

I find it flippant and insulting for you to say that women like me are “nuts” and their brains have issues. My brain has no issues, thank you very much—I’m a 23 year old medical student who graduated high school at age 16 with a National Merit Scholarship, went through college on a full merit scholarship and got my B.S. at age 19 1/2 and am now in my 3rd year of med school. My brain is fucking wonderful.

Then you should know that there are different kinds of intelligence, that people can be excellent at one thing and bad at another, and that it’s tough to make good decisions on bad information.  Many people with doctorates have areas of life where they struggle.  Knowing all about the circulatory system doesn’t automatically qualify you as a political thinker.  And you seem to be making what is a common assumption among science students—that “anyone” can do arts and social sciences (including politics), that it’s easy. 

Also, as far as proving it all your life, you’re an anonymous commenter on an Internet forum.  You could claim anything about yourself.  Other anonymous commenters can only really judge you on what you write here.

I understand the perspective of people who vote Green because Obama is insufficiently liberal a lot more than people who would vote Republican because Obama is insufficiently liberal, but Clinton was not substantially more liberal than Obama, so I still don’t quite get it.

Equal Pay For Women: Barack Obama Says One Thing and Does Another….Again

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

So I’m a Republican again, huh bics? You wanted to know how some of us can justify voting for McCain. One man’s issue is another woman’s Just Say No Deal.

Regarding Clark’s remark about McCain: I saw his biography on “Headliners and Legends” right after Hillary’s. Hillary’s made me respect her even more but McCain’s wasn’t as attractive. He was portrayed as a partyboy that unlike Bush, and given his heritage, was expected to show up for duty. He was shot down on a mission and served his time as a POW. He left his wife soon after returning.

He’s not a superman, he may not have been crazy brave, he definitely has his faults, but he has served this country his entire adult life. If you sully his name, I think you sully this country.

Just sayin.

The last few entries are wingnut crews. I guess now I have to post few bible verses in wingnut forum just to rile up the wackos against McCain. lol.

that\‘s always fun to see.

PS. in case you are wondering the rightwing/GOP is FAR FAR fractured and easier to rile up. Let\‘s see if I can make them eat the PUMA\‘s. Specially the klan brigade.

Bunch of liberal sounding whiny babies is voting for McCain? whooaaa… nothing sink the wingnut voters than that. lol brb. hunting for nice wacko McCain site.

Here’s a hint to the recent PUMA arrivals:

It’s very hypocritical for you to come here and claim that those of us who are supporting the Democratic nominee are treating you badly and supressing your voices, when you yourself use such insulting language towards us.

Just keep that in mind. Although, so many of you are trolls, so my words my fall on deaf ears, but perhaps some of you at least have the ability to be diplomatic.

I can’t believe that I have nothing to say on this topic. But aren’t you all glad I’m not a PUMA?

“Then you should know that there are different kinds of intelligence, that people can be excellent at one thing and bad at another, and that it’s tough to make good decisions on bad information.  Many people with doctorates have areas of life where they struggle.  Knowing all about the circulatory system doesn’t automatically qualify you as a political thinker.  And you seem to be making what is a common assumption among science students—that “anyone” can do arts and social sciences (including politics), that it’s easy.”

You are assuming that the decision I, or some people with doctorates, are making bad decisions. That’s a value judgment. You or like-minded individuals are in no better of a position to judge whether or not my political choices are “good decisions” than I am. You are looking at others’ decisions from a position of self-righteousness, a weakness you share with your candidate Obama. 

“Also, as far as proving it all your life, you’re an anonymous commenter on an Internet forum.  You could claim anything about yourself.  Other anonymous commenters can only really judge you on what you write here.”

That’s all right with me—I have no intention of proving my background to a bunch of people who seem to have all day to spend commenting on blogs like this because I don’t give out specific details to strangers on the internet. But I gave parts of my background to show that there are women out there choosing not to vote for Obama who are not nuts and some (like me) are intelligent people capable of making decisions with rationality. Amanda Marcotte and others falsely portray women who aren’t voting for BO to be loonies who habitually allows emotions to trump reason. No matter how repeatedly you and your friends try to claim that some highly-educated people are incapable of making rational political choices…that argument is not born out by research. I read about a sociologic study that states that with greater levels of education, people tend to be more politically liberal. That could imply that the more highly educated liberals who won’t vote for Obama aren’t doing so because they’re nuts, as you’d like to think; they won’t vote for him because he’s Republican-lite and not progressive enough. 

“I understand the perspective of people who vote Green because Obama is insufficiently liberal a lot more than people who would vote Republican because Obama is insufficiently liberal, but Clinton was not substantially more liberal than Obama, so I still don’t quite get it. “

This is my reasoning—Obama made a big speech on race during the primaries, knowing it would advance his campaign. This was seen as a politically courageous act—he made a speech on nationalized television on a topic that many people fear to talk about. If he was a true progressive, wouldn’t he have made a similar speech about gender? Even if the race speech was just lip-service paid to a complex issue that he’s not planning to do much about as a president, shouldn’t he have paid equal lip-service to sexism if he’s so liberal? Sure it might have been done in self-interest, but HRC brought up gender and sexism sometimes during the campaign. And she is not a racist, contrary to what a lot of Obama’s supporters say. She and her husband have done way more for the civil rights of black americans than Obama has done for the women’s rights. So, the way I see it, HRC is more progressive than Obama: she is neither racist nor sexist (and yes, women and some self-described feminists can be sexist), whereas Obama is not racist but he is sexist.

That’s my take on it anyways.

I don’t know about you… but I think this PUMA stuff is great.

eg. start an online movement within the super conservative religious wing and tell them “McCain is NOT God chosen candidate”... proof?  The homos, and feminist radicals, the colored folks, and all those degenerates actually going to VOTE for McCain because they think McCain is better choice than Obama.

(insert bible quote, insert link to puma web sites) Then tell them, what sort of liberal fool would launch this sort of operation. This must be McCain courting those sick in the soul people. Why would he do that? God will never permit such sinners… yadda yadda yadda…

.... eh hmmm. lol.

Sorry bicky, I was off reading other blogs. Here’s the info you requested:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200804/POL20080430a.html

If you sully his name, I think you sully this country.

Ratfucker, ratfucker, fuck me a rat…

You are assuming that the decision I, or some people with doctorates, are making bad decisions. That’s a value judgment. You or like-minded individuals are in no better of a position to judge whether or not my political choices are “good decisions” than I am. You are looking at others’ decisions from a position of self-righteousness, a weakness you share with your candidate Obama.

No, arrogant one, that was not the point I was making.  The point I was making was that being smart enough to be a medical student does not imply being smart about all decisions all the time, and therefore that your “I got a scholarship and I’m a med student blah blah blah smarterthanyoucakes” thing was a red herring.

I am not American, so Obama is not my candidate.  However, like most people who don’t live in the States, I think the Republican party is batshit right-wing and would prefer a non-batshit leader of the free world over a batshit one.  I would have been fine with Clinton too.

Ok, smart-ass one, my point is that highly educated voters (like me) are better equipped to make good political decisions than is the average Joe. Anyone can vote in this country, whether they are low-information or high. The more educated people are (in whatever subject) the more likely they are to be politically active in terms of voting, and the more liberal they tend to be.

I did NOT say that as a highly intelligent person I am better equipped to make all decisions. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that as a highly educated person, I am definitely better equipped to make a good political decision than the average, less-educated voter, so anyone pulling this “anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama is letting their emotions override their logic” bullshit is lying and they better know it.

I guess it must just be a fun pastime for people who are so passionate about their candidate to paint people who don’t agree with them as lunatics and over-emotional crazy people. But sorry, that’s a stereotype, and women who call themselves feminists and perpetuate stereotypes like this about other feminists are doing women as a group more harm than they know.

If you don’t live in the US, why the hell do you care anyway? Are you an expat or something?

If you don’t live in the US, why the hell do you care anyway?

...

Seriously?  With all that higher education, you SERIOUSLY need me to explain why it matters?

I had heard of U.S. isolationism, but WOW.  If you don’t understand that, you ARE the “average, less-educated voter,” no matter what degrees you have.

Ok, smart-ass one, my point is that highly educated voters (like me) are better equipped to make good political decisions than is the average Joe. Anyone can vote in this country,
db on 06/30 at 09:26 PM \”

so far, you are only talk about being smart. I don\‘t see any smart opinion worth listening yet…
I can talk about how smart I am all night too. big friggin deal.

plus, your attitude seems rather \“elitist\” to make a good doctor. (not that I believe for a minute you are a med student… lol but whatever. I\‘ll keep you happy.)

Benf, we’re here because we heard we didn’t exist. We’re not telling you how to vote, lord knows nothing will change your minds. And I’m sorry if some of the comments seem a bit flippant. But as Hillary supporters, we’ve taken quite a bit over the last few months and our diplomacy skills have suffered.

We are indeed part of the Democratic party, at least most of us still are, some have left already. Or, as we like to say, the party left us. Really. I’m not kidding. Here’s a radio station in PA that featured PUMAs today. Governor Rendell has actually formed a group called H.O.U.N.D. to bring us back in to the fold. Read about it in Corbett’s Corner here:

http://www.wilknetwork.com/pages/322229.php

We won’t vote for Obama but many of us will not vote for McCain. We’re asking nothing more here than to prove we exist and not be called Republican trolls. Well, I guess we may be anti Obama trolls - if you view any differing opinions on his support trolling. Anyway pretending we’re something other than what we are may make you feel better but it doesn’t change things.

Again my apologies. We hate it went bots come in and muck up our blogs but if we didn’t keep them out, they’d take over. Still I understand where some of you are coming from so I’ll leave you to get on with things. And if anyone asks you if PUMAs exist, well you know.

Oh, just one thing Elinor, this is what I’m talking about.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/missbunnyblog.jpg

NQ and Michael Savage? hey Bring in Oleily and limbutt too, they all are what progressive listen to I\‘ve heard. lol

Wow, the wingnuts are running out of idea. they are not even trying to conceal their hackery anymore. I am so diving into the ultra rightwing site and start moving making them eat McCain with this PUMA stuff. Try to find better lies. The last few ones are kinda lame.

He’s a puppet of the powers-that-be.

What powers, exactly? The DNC powerful were lined up behind Clinton, remember? The GOP powerful are all lined up behind McCain, against Obama.

I don’t know what “powers” are left that you could be talking about. The Illuminati? The Five Jew Bankers?

“Seriously?  With all that higher education, you SERIOUSLY need me to explain why it matters?

I had heard of U.S. isolationism, but WOW.  If you don’t understand that, you ARE the “average, less-educated voter,” no matter what degrees you have. “

....Yeah, I understand why someone outside the U.S. would care. But I also know some people outside the U.S. (as my grandparents and many aunt and uncles live outside the U.S.) and most of them don’t follow American politics as closely as you seem like you might.

To the person who is miffed that I seem to go on and on about how smart I am, sounds like how Obama and his supporters go on and on about his race, making it an issue when it’s not. The only difference is that the mental and intellectual soundness of women in my demographic (liberals who aren’t voting for Obama) was called into question by Marcotte’s post here.

As for whether or not I’m REALLY a medical student—-boy do I not have time to argue with you about your doubts. Also, most doctors you might think are “good” don’t tell their patients exactly what they think. This is called “professionalism.” And you know who REALLY wouldn’t make a good doctor? Obama. Because he fails to listen and address concerns.

Ok I don’t have time for any more back-and-forth commenting. Ciao.

All of these PUMA comments can be summarized in one word:

“Waaaahhhhh!!!”

Cello
http://pumacentral.blogspot.com

Follow the money Chet.

Sorry, that’s the last one I promise. Oh wait, one more, diving swan?, huh, oh ok.

Eeeeehhhh. Wrong but thanks for playing. The correct answer to viewing the Obama blog with a poster saying McCain is a war criminal is “Hey, well I don’t like McCain but saying he’s a war criminal doesn’t do our hope change cause any good. After all they swiftboated Kerry with the same thing so that makes us just as bad as them”.

And by the way, I think you mean Savage Politics, not Michael Savage. At least you should if you want to make any sense.

not all of your ‘trolls’ are brand spankin’ new, you know. i’d been reading this site for, god, probably going on four or five years. got sick of ms kate being a malicious asshat, and got sick of the endless obama cheerleading, and took this place off my reading list back in february or so. happened to stumble in here today, and, damn, can’t say i’m sad that i left.

not all PUMAs are McCain supporters. not all PUMAs are right-leaning democrats, or right-leaning independents. me, i’m a fourth-generation democrat, born and raised, and i just switched my registration last week. to green. because i’m done with the party-line bullshit.

stop using fucking roe v. wade as a cudgel. when was the last time democrats stood up for the protections provided by roe? this is, nominally, a feminist website. funny how shit like that never comes up. roe is nothing but a shell. the democrats have given me no reason to even *wish* for vague, mealy-mouthed support for reproductive rights.

where was pandagon when obama sagely declared that women should have ‘some rights’ over their own bodies? marketing amanda’s charmingly-illustrated book, more than likely. funny how the most strident defenders here on this thread just happen to be fauxgressive dudes who don’t have to give a fucking shit about roe, but still just love using it as a whip to beat the unruly wimminfolk into line. nice to see that this feminist blog has commenters who buy into freudian bullshit when it’s convenient. nice to see the ignorance on parade. guess it all helps pad the margins?

i’m a flaming goddamn leftist pinko commie. i wouldn’t dream of voting for mccain, not in eight fucking lifetimes. and i’m a PUMA. nice to see y’all. sad to see that you haven’t moved on from your hero-worship.

(also, let me guess: “(x) swan” is squashed. nice to see that useful idiots are still being celebrated here.)

....Yeah, I understand why someone outside the U.S. would care. But I also know some people outside the U.S. (as my grandparents and many aunt and uncles live outside the U.S.) and most of them don’t follow American politics as closely as you seem like you might.

Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.  What an excellent point.  Clearly I care about American politics more than foreigners ought to, if I care more than the overseas relatives of a blog commenter I’ve never met. 

To the person who is miffed that I seem to go on and on about how smart I am, sounds like how Obama and his supporters go on and on about his race, making it an issue when it’s not.

An ad hominem, followed by a tu quoque!  She’s trying to hit every logical fallacy on the list.

i’m a flaming goddamn leftist pinko commie. i wouldn’t dream of voting for mccain, not in eight fucking lifetimes. and i’m a PUMA. nice to see y’all. sad to see that you haven’t moved on from your hero-worship.

I get that.  What I don’t get is why voting for Obama is so much worse than voting for Kerry.

Benf, we’re here because we heard we didn’t exist. We’re not telling you how to vote, lord knows nothing will change your minds. And I’m sorry if some of the comments seem a bit flippant. But as Hillary supporters, we’ve taken quite a bit over the last few months and our diplomacy skills have suffered.

Well… if you acknowledge that your(you plural) words have been less than kind, can you at least concede that coming on this blog and yelling at people will only give your movement a bad name?

We are indeed part of the Democratic party, at least most of us still are, some have left already. Or, as we like to say, the party left us

Just to let you know, that line has been used many many times before, and it’s getting a little stale(not from anti-Obama use alone. It’s just plain a lousy rhetorical point.

As to the whole thing about existence,yes, you’re a real voter and there are many like you. However, I find it’s the case that for every PUMA member, there’s another GOP voter who won’t vote for McCain, either due to him being insufficiently anti-gay and anti-immigration, or because they’ve notice the far rightward trend of the GOP and want to get out(i.e. John Cole), or because they genuinely like Obama. So, in essense, yes, you all are part of a voting block, but you shouldn’t get too disappointed that your votes may very well be canceled out in the long run. I’m predicting this not as a way to slight you personally, but just because that is most likely what will happen looking at both polls and general anecdotal trends.

Well, I guess we may be anti Obama trolls - if you view any differing opinions on his support trolling.

Um, no, that’s not what trolling is.
If you want to offer criticism of Obama, considering that Pandagon is a strongly left leaning blog (as are most pro-Obama blogs), how about using effective criticism? If someone criticizes Obama purely from the left rather than from the right (as in, calling into question why Obama capitulated on telecom immunity or why he still supports capital punishment), and isn’t verbally abusive towards those who plan on voting for him (as in, calling us cultists), then there’s no rational reason for that person to be called a cultist. Believe me, these past couple of weeks after those disappointing actions that Obama took, I fully expected such criticism to be leveled at him, and I knew that it was valid.

But this crap about him being an “unqualified” and “an empty suit” and making fun of his name are right wing memes that were spread even before he began his run for the White House. So… when a PUMA starts using those memes, it makes perfect sense to consider that such a person may have gotten some ideas from a GOP operation, and it’s not unfathomable that such a person may actually be Republican in all but name.

“got sick of ms kate being a malicious asshat…”

I think Ms. Kate was molested by a PUMA as a child.

And the Swan troll… his or her grammar is way too good to be squashed’s.

What I don’t get is why voting for Obama is so much worse than voting for Kerry.

elinor, i can only speak for myself, but having seen the performance of the democrats in congress, particularly since 2006 (when i was told we’d, you know, won, and were the majority, and could do stuff), i can’t bring myself to hope that holding my nose and voting for the lesser of the two evils will do any fucking good at all. i did vote for kerry in 2004, even though i didn’t like it much. i voted for gore back in 2000, even though he wasn’t liberal enough for my taste. (i almost went green, but nader’s grandstanding egotism put me off. i lived in a reliably blue state, then, but he annoyed me enough to make me give gore another look, and i went with him.)

i’m frustrated, because i’ve spent my adult life, up to this point, falling in line and voting for the democrats because i hoped they’d suck less and would maybe hesitate, at least for a few seconds, before selling me out. pelosi and reid and dean and the rest have proven, time and again, that the faith i had was misplaced. so i’m done. voting for obama may not be much worse than voting for kerry, on balance, but this time i’m just a bit wiser, and the party’s lost my goodwill. it seems uninterested in earning it back. also, kerry was willing to be up-front about his support for reproductive rights, despite the threats of excommunication. obama? not so much. he’s not even willing to risk alienating republicans who might, just maybe, if he’s lucky, maybe vote for him, let alone his faith. fuck that. kerry was also not quite such a free-marketeering, business-solves-problems,  i-heart-corporations type. (marginally. the margin’s very thin. it does exist, though.)

foucalt: eh. they share a lot of verbal tics. squashed certainly displayed a looser grasp of basic english grammar, but swan’s style suggests to me he’s not a native speaker, and at his more rambly, he gets pretty close to the style of squashed, both in his voice and in his swerving about.

This article is complete propaganda.  I did a quick search here.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=murphy&fname=Darragh&search=Search

$650 Donation to Clinton in Q2

Give me a break, Obama thugs. You need to cover your lies up better.

We are not Republicans people.  WAKE UP!  Your Democarcy is on fire!

You will not have a Democracy if you give up your right to a credible election.  It has been rigged for Obama, and this trash is all part of it.  Smear everyone who stands in your way.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com

I get that.  What I don’t get is why voting for Obama is so much worse than voting for Kerry.

1. austan goolsbee, david cutler, jeffrey liebman

2. oh lord

3. “Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court’s holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy.”

——————————

like kidlacan said, it’s a very thin margin. i’ll just add: yeah, it’s a 2-party system, so in spite of my leanings, i’ve been a registered democrat for 3 decades, voted unhesitatingly for the democrat in every single presidential election in that time, so when do i get to stop moving to the right in [mostly] futile efforts to stop the republicans? when does the democratic party start moving even a little bit in my direction?

“I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy.”

You have to spin that pretty damn hard to make it an anti-choice statement.

Kerry fell all over himself apologizing for being pro-choice.  Hillary Clinton did the same in a 2005 speech.  I really don’t see how that’s better.

he trusts women to make these decisions? apparently only if they include their families [what? even their kids have a say in this? husbands? boyfriends? parents?]. worse yet they’ll need moral guidance from god’s representatives here on earth, the clergy, which was still mosty male last i checked.

at what point in the futre are women going to be allowed to be grownups, fully capable of making their own decisions, and living with the consequences?

yes, this really is a wrenching choice sometimes, and that needs to be fully recognized. this moral wrenchiness, though, is not universal. as a nation, we don’t need to be trying to guilt-trip women into agonizing over this if for them it’s a clear-cut decision.

obama’s not anti-choice, but his words here paint him as patronizing and perhaps even thinking that women really are the weaker vessel.

mike gravel, bless his libertarian heart, is the only one of the candidates who gets it right.

Kidlacan:

I agree there are strong similarities in their styles, but swan uses American slang that suggests more of a familiarity with native American speech. For example:

“dude, this is no confluence thread. Try posting something worth reading. Forum sidekick is so 90’s”

or from Diving Swan:

“Wow, the wingnuts are running out of idea. they are not even trying to conceal their hackery anymore. I am so diving into the ultra rightwing site and start moving making them eat McCain with this PUMA stuff. Try to find better lies. The last few ones are kinda lame.”

They both revel in the acronym “lol,” which is suspect. But I would say the differences in slang signal two difference personae (if not actual persons).

you are such a liar.  A quick check of your facts readily debunks your propaganda.  We are not Republicans, we are democrats who are tired of people like YOU using Republican tactics to smear us.  How disgraceful.  You tarnish any good this site may have once done when you publsh lies.  I hope that ms. murphy sues your pants off.  I thought the netroots was skeptical of the media bias…I guess that was only when it worked against you.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

MikeEss, you’ve hit the nail firmly on the head. Thank you.

Posted at the confluence:

Amanda Marcotte (from the Pandagon site) is a hypocrite and a liar.  Remember when she got fired from the Edwards’ campaign?

Among other things, Marcotte had written: “The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.” She also questioned, in explicit language, what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken the emergency contraceptive called Plan B.

Last month, Marcotte wrote of the Duke University rape case: “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”

Oh, and the irony…at the time she blamed her critics as being sexist:

Amanda Marcotte, whose writings were assailed as anti-Catholic, wrote yesterday on her blog that the Edwards camp had accepted her resignation. She blamed her most vocal critic, Bill Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, writing that he “and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics,”

Please go ask her why it was ok to decry sexism when she was in the hotseat, but she is free to use the same tactics to smear others.  what a tool

Clinton won the popular vote.  Super Delegates should vote for her.  Obama was installed as the nominee, and he is illegitimate.

I can’t believe that liberals are arguing that the winner of the popular vote should lose after everything that happend in 2000.

The RBC decision stole delegates from Clinton and gave them to Obama, so that the SDs Obama bought off could put him over the top.

We don’t have a nominee until August.  Write the Super Delegates and tell them to support the people’s choice, Clinton.

It is not too late to stand up for Democracy.

So. It is official then? Confluence IS a rightwing outfit. PUMA in general is using GOP talking points and attack method.

Congratulation PUMA team. You just lost all your credibility.

It would help if you would learn to read.  I was not attacking her for her position, just pointing out HER hypocrisy for using the same type of smear tactics which were used against her at the time.

Mawm,

Are you counting the caucus states?

garyggg,

Since when has Amanda used sexist smear tactics?

Oh, that’s right, she supported for the Presidency a candidate who is a MAN! OH NOES!

Keep thinking we are Republicans and you will be so blindsided.  We are the real Democrats.  We are the ones standing up for counting the votes, something every liberal I know was chanting in 2000.  Oh how the times have changed, when the candidate of voter suppresion and voter fraud is the one you support.

You are complete hypocrites.

Mawm,

No. You are the one who is trying to disenfranchise voters in caucus states such as myself. You are acting in a very shameful manner.

Good post, Amanda, but please don’t waste too much time on these people.  If you hang out at the confluence(or similar sites) for more than five minutes, you’ll see that it’s collective mentality is very similar to 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy theorists. 
This is how they see the world:
Clinton didn’t lose because Mark Penn, Harold Ickes,Howard Wolfson and the like ran a horrible campaign that didn’t emphasize her strengths.  The nomination was STOLEN from her!!  It was a CONSPIRACY!!!  Howard Dean,Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama,David Axelrod, etc got together behind the scenes and decided they cared more about the black vote than the womens’ vote!  So, I guess Clinton lost ten out of eleven primaries at one point because all her votes were thrown out or switched by Dean? 

Also,on Planet Puma, the only reason young people vote for Obama is because they’re idiots. 

They also say Clinton lost because Obama ran a misogynist campaign.  When asked to produce one shred of evidence of this, they point to him calling a reporter “sweetie”.  Or they say he should have condemned every sexist comment against Clinton made by the media pundits(Matthews,Barnicle, etc).  Never mind that Clinton tried to tie Obama to Farrakhan in one of the debates. 

Sure, I know people like them.  An old friend of mine lost me when he joined the 9/11 conspiracy movement.  I don’t try to “win him over” with facts, I just ignore him, if I run into him at the grocery store, we say hi and keep going.  That’s how we should treat the so-called pumas. 

Now, I’m sure some of the pumas actually believe this, and some are closet republicans preying on the sensibilities of conspiracy theorists.
So I say let them vote McCain or McKinney Barr or stay home.  You can’t have a rational conversation with irrational people or a republican claiming to be a democrat.

I would like to argue that this PAC was not formed to support Clinton, but to support the media narrative about hysterical feminists, and to help the McCain campaign with goals #1 and #2.

If, in fact, PUMAS are real democratic women, isn’t she using the narrative of “hysterical feminists” herself?

I don’t know what you are talking about Lady. I was a Hillary Supporter during the primaries.

We are fighting for the undemocratic process of the DNC.

Undemocratic Caucuses controlled by the Obama Campaign

Giving Hillary Clinton’s Delegates to Obama.

Obama took himself off the ballot so the man isn’t entitled to any delegates in Michigan

The Super Delegate Storm would’ve never happen if Florida and Michigan would’ve been counted properly.  I live in a America where Florida and Michigan are included. The DNC clearly had other indications.

You need to get over yourself. We are Democrats not republicans my friend. If you don’t believe us, Then I guess you will have to wait until nov to see how many democrats or how many democrats change their party afflictions to independent vote for McCain or vote for a Thrid Party or write Hillary Clinton in.

Keep calling our movement republican funded campaign. However, Don’t be surprised when the numbers in Nov show something very different.

As mentioned above, You don’t bother to do some research and see that one of our faithful staff members of puma donated 600 $ to the Clinton Campaign. I guess you just wanted to spin it your way and that little piece of information wasn’t going to help u in doing that.

Darragh Murphy (8 Bedford Road, Carlisle Mass.) is a psychopath.  Some of his/her posts on the PumaPac blog exhibit clear signs of narcissistic/histrionic personality disorder. 

Pumas remind me of Claymates.  And are equally as relevant to the political sphere.

Return of the Dixiecrats hooray!

The funniest part is that they don’t seem to understand that their faulty logic will just push McCain into the white house, a man who will effectively destroy the middle class, where most of these so-called “democrats” hail and self-identify from.

You want to dig that hole? Enjoy it. I have no problem with protesting the DNC’s behavior or Obama’s campaign. But to vote for McCain is hilarious. Go for it. I’m white, privileged, well-educated and well-off, so I’m looking forward to the tax breaks at your expense. I’ll miss my abortion and bodily integrity rights as a female, but hey, if it’s what the “real democrats” want, go for it!

Actually, you are fighting to put McCain in office. But stating the obvious would defeat the democratic facade and certainly be ignored by large number of readers. So a little different excuse is needed…

unfortunately, like one observes in this thread, the facade is shattered when one start asking probing questions. (What is women issues, How does puma position square with those issues.  and any other progressive issues.)

Essentially, PUMA is a republican outfit, using inane excuses to generate discontent , providing reason, and urge leaning right/Reagan democrats to stay home.

Method, techniques, and funding are all typical republican operation. Highly predictable.

It’s so easy, and so typical. Everything that is not politically in accordance to your opinions, is being called “racist” or “republican” I am sorry to tell you that I have always voted Democrats, that I was in New York at the RNC and participated in manyprotests, so pleas, don’t give me this childish treatment. I am no Republican, but not a Democrat either,I have decided tostay Independent, and when I was ready to change to Democrat, Mr. Obama comes with this dirty political techniques and everybody plays his game. I decided not to join the Democratic Party, but I do not consider myself a Republican. It is very simple, I do not trust Senator Obama. And it is my right as an American to dissent politically without being discriminated against, or called names. What you are doing is called pre-communism, the beginnings of censorship, of lack of political freedom, of communism, and I know a lot about it!
How do you dare to say that we, at PUMA, generate discontent? Discontent has been generated by the leaders of a PArty that has failed 18 million AMERICANS ! it is them and the presumptive candidate the ones generating division in the country, and you are playing their game! Wait until you do not agree with what they say, they will try to shut you off too !!
It’s so easy to call us Republicans, racist, or any other names you want, but at least we have the courage you lack to see and express our hearts and minds ! Freedom of speech still exists and will exist in this country, you are no one to tell me how I can think ! We won’t tolerate it.

How idiotic to write of a group of voters as being all women.

And it is my right as an American to dissent politically without being discriminated against, or called names.

I’m afraid there is no such thing as a legal right not to be called names.

Pumas remind me of Claymates.

Yes!  Actually, remember when Ruben Studdard won AI?  Some of Clay Aiken’s fans wrote screeds about how they had been robbed, they would not be silenced, and 19 Inc. would have to deal with their wrath.  Very, very similar.

Also, for all your attempt to discredit the PUMAs you just make it look like you are concerned.

Look into the Primary fiasco more carefully, instead of trying to discredit people who care about democracy.

There are many many PUMA men like me out there also, you are fooling yourselves if you think this is about some disgruntled women. We stand together, and we will stand up for democracy, because you will not.

Darragh Murphy (8 Bedford Road, Carlisle Mass.) is a psychopath.  Some of his/her posts on the PumaPac blog exhibit clear signs of narcissistic/histrionic personality disorder. 

Pumas remind me of Claymates.  And are equally as relevant to the political sphere.

Andy on 07/01 at 12:50 PM
===================================================

LMAO Obama is the psychopath!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Drink more kool-aid.
I have been a Democrat all my life and I will NOT vote for that empty suit Obma.!!!!!!!!!!!  Evil Obama!!!!!!!!!!  Evil Obama supporters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Puma Man,

Perhaps you’re already aware of the wackiness of your name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pumaman

If not, then Torgo and Eegah each have greater credibility right now.

As to your arguement, I’ll repeat what I’ve said earlier: your movement will be outnumbered by the pro-Obama Republicans (and of course the Democrats and Independents who will vote for him as well, but that goes without saying)

Oh really,  you know how to do research… bustin a gut here… ha ha Ms. Murphy donated to Clinton in the primary.  Huff Post makes it oh so easy to check.  Fight the truth with smears… what an Obamabot you are.  Go choke on your koolaid.

Stick to the argument, BenF a name is just a name.

then keep repeating adnaseum until the Dems lose yet another election.

There’s no need to impersonate me.

But your last sentence reveals your true motives. Go back to freeper land.

I am a proud member of PUMA —- I find it amusing that those of you that complain about it have very little knowledge or have done no research. I guess we expect that from Obamats. PUMA has members of all races, sexes & ages.

I guess I am happy that we are getting attention from the little minds. I am sure your Obama control person will tell what you are doing tomorrow.

In the mean time, please at least try some research!!!

Hey Puma Man,

I have no doubt that many, if not most, Pumas are male.  I bet 95% are sweaty highschool boys with bad breath and worse acne sitting around their computers during their summer internship at McCain’s headquarters.

Amanda, Amanda, Amanda - I am a 63 year old, white, educated female - life long democrat until this year - while I was originally angry & bitter about the way the democratic party & the democratic national committee selected a nominee for the presidential race I have moved on sorta.  I am still angry but now am part of the PUMA movement and we are protesting the 2008 selection (sorry election).  If you would do a little fact checking yourself - you could find out all kinds of incredible things - like women actually got the right to vote - it’s even part of the consitution - Obama is/of the Chicago political machine (which is not clean) & you can check that out also - calling Obama immature, inadequate and unqualified is not racist - it is the truth - free speech is part of the consitution also and I can certainly exercise it - I own my vote and I will vote for whomever I please and it does not please me to vote for Obama - I have never voted for a republican in my life & have trouble with McCain because he laughed when one of his supporters asked him “What do we do about the bitch?” - Rant and rave all you want but don’t call me a republican - I am an American born & bred and I love this country and the democratic principles it stands for….....................

Don,

Here’s a hint:
When so many of you post messages that say almost the exact same thing, it may not be the wisest thing to accuse US of being “bots”.

BenF that was actually an accident, not deliberate impersonation as I didn’t realise I had copied and pasted your name in the other box as well - not so great at multitasking, but at least I know why I support the PUMA campaign and it is because I believe in democracy. You believe what you want about my motives, I know you are wrong.

Pumas,

Your diatribes about your free speech being violated somehow are just slightly overreaching.  Nobody here is trying to silence your voice or challenge your right to vote for whomever you choose.  You have the right to type whatever you want on your various crazy blogs, just as we have the right to type that you’re ostensibly a bunch of lunatics and in all likelihood a Republican creation.  Free speech goes both ways. 

And honestly, I wouldn’t want to take away your freedom of speech, because I find you guys endlessly entertaining.  Now tell me more about koolaid and bots….

“Female Clinton supporters who are so bitter about her loss that they will throw equal pay, reproductive rights, the environment, and a chance at peace under the bus to get their revenge by voting for McCain.” PROVEN THAT MCCAIN PAYS HIS FEMALE STAFFERS MORE THAN MEN, AND OBAMA PAYS HIS FEMALE STAFFERS MUCH LESS. PROVEN THAT REPUBLICANS DON’T BOTHER WITH REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, PROVEN THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS OF CONSEQUENCE (ANWR), PROVEN “PEACE” COMES WITH A PRICE. OBAMA IS MASQURADING AS THE MESSIAH.

Hey Puma Man,

I have no doubt that many, if not most, Pumas are male.  I bet 95% are sweaty highschool boys with bad breath and worse acne sitting around their computers during their summer internship at McCain’s headquarters.

well maybe you will lose that bet when

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/25/i-own-my-vote-sign-the-pledge-2/

I am a swift boater? Wow, I am really rethinking why in Gods name I ever supported the Dems. This is not what I thought I was part of.

I can’t even read past swift boating….

I had no idea my X party were such son’s of a bitches!

This has ben a vary expensive lesson.

Heed my warning abandon hope all ye that inter here.

Don’t any of you Repub’s say I told you so this is all ready hard enough to take.

Benf, we’re not the ones who decided to vote for a candidate who’s campaign slogan is “You’re the ones you’ve been waiting for”. Bots you are until you develop some analytical skills.

By the way, why don’t you Obama fans give us one good reason to vote for him other than threats of what the opposition will do?  We’ve decided that reason is not good enough.

I am from Chicago and I never have and never will vote for Obama. Even when teamsters Union tried to force its memebers to vote Obama I said NO. I can not in good conscious vote for Obama. America deserves better than that. The media ask people of PUMA if your just sore losers or will you vote for Obama if he picks Hillary as a VP. For me the answer is short and sweet “NO” Not only was Hillary screwed but so was America. As I said I am from Chicago so I know about the shady deals of Rezko as well as other people Obama has in his closet (Wright, Ayers, Sinclair, etc.) Obama admitted he helped Rezko as a lawyer to screw poor elderly usually black people out of their homes. Obama also admited to housing deal with Rezko to gain property at a sweet deal that would not have been offered to him in the first place. Then again Obama is the same guy who held a fundraiser party for his campaign at known domestic terrorist William Ayers house. I question anyone who knows Obama why would they vote for him? I have made it a point to not only not vote Obama but I will be actively campaign for Sen McCain if Hillary is not the nominiee come Nov. Also being in Chicago I am actually in the area where Bill Foster won a house seat to replace Dennis Hastert . Since Foster is backing Obama I will be working to help the republicans win back that seat. I will be campaigning for Oberweis even after I was offered a role on Fosters staff. I been a life long Dem and have worked with many Dems in Chicago and this year I say PUMA.

I am glad to say that I made my own research and D. Murphy did donate to Hillary.
And for your information, the PUMA group are not all women.  I have been a Democrat for 35 years.  This year will be the first year I vote for a Republican.

I wonder if there is anybody from that area who could do some archive research and check her voter registration over time.  Also, how about if anybody there can recall her participation in any other political campaigns.

I am a die hard democrat and have been for many, many years.  This will be the first time in my adult life that I have voted for a Republican.  I am willing to put my country above my party.  The bottom line for me is that I just do not feel Obama is qualified to be out commander- in- chief.

On a side note, I really don’t care if Puma PAC was started by a Dem or Rep.  The issues regarding the democratic party and its selected nominee are the same.  Do McCain and I differ on some issues - absolutely.  Do I trust McCain over Obama to run our country - absolutely!!!  It is a simple as that.

I am glad to say that I made my own research and D. Murphy did donate to Hillary.
And for your information, the PUMA group are not all women.  I have been a Democrat for 35 years.  This year will be the first year I vote for a Republican.

william DenverCO on 07/01 at 02:36 PM

**********************

Thanks for the follow up info!

Really does not matter what you believe or not.  I for one am an Independent that will not vote for Obama but would of voted Clinton.  Based on his associates that he now attempts to distance himself from, federal money that he funneled to his churches, his voting record in IL and in Congress, his flip-flopping, running Clinton down but now “singing” her praises, telling Cubans in Miami that he will meet with Castro…and that is just a few reasons.

My family members and friends that are Democrats and Union Card Carriers feel the same.  When Obama losses in November, there is one plus…just like past candidates, he will never be President of this great nation!

Sticks and stones may break our bones but names will never hurt us!  A PUMA and proud of it.

Dear Amanda,

www.blog.pumapac.org is not an organization founded by a McCain supporter, though Darragh contributed at one time to John McCain in an effort to hurt George Bush.  We do support Hillary Clinton, who has suspended, not conceded, her campaign.  I am a PUMA pac moderator and on the board, so I feel confident when I tell you that this is not a 527 for McCain.  We do not do anything for McCain, and we are not affiliated with any candidate, in spite of our support of Hillary Clinton.  What we do is provide a forum and a voice for voters who feel disenfranchised by the Democratic Party. 

It appears to me, just speaking for myself, that the Democratic Party is being hijacked by liberal elites, similar to the way in which the Republican Party was hijacked by the Christian conservatives.  As a Florida native and a lifelong Democrat, I am very concerned about what I see as abuses of power within the electoral college generally, the Democratic leadership, and the caucus process in various states.  I personally think we should have a direct democracy and the availability of reliable information to all voters so that all of us can participate meaningfully in our government. 

PUMAs believe that Senator Obama is not qualified for the office.  I am one of the PUMAs who also believes that in August at the Convention, Senator Clinton should be designated the nominee because she is electable, qualified, and she won the popular vote (counting all states).  I think it is fair to count all states.  Senator Obama threatened to sue Michigan if it put his name on the ballot.  Florida voters had no control about when the primary was set.  Re-votes were offered but rejected by Senator Obama’s campaign.  It appears that Senator Obama is maneuvering in a fashion similar to his approach to winning as an Illinois senator, when he ensured victory by having a well-loved incumbent and another opposing candidate knocked from the ballot so that he was the only choice.

Sadly, Senator Obama does not offer change or hope, just more of the same corrupt political flip-flopping and opportunistic rhetoric we’ve seen before.

My goodness, such intelligent people on this blog. Anyone who does not agree with your point of view is a “rat fucker”. Wow, that is insightful! The only thing less interesting and narrower than your vocabulary is your analysis of who PUMAs are. If you don’t agree with PUMAs that is fine, but please educate yourself appropriately about who we are. It is interesting to me that such “liberal” and “open-minded” people like yourselves, who I presume are supporting Senator Obama-the self proclaimed candidate of hope and change are going to great lengths to be mean spirited. To me this speaks of fear. Fear of what? Not sure? Could it be that you are afraid to really look at your “selected” candidate? Might you find that he is not who you think he is? I can guarantee that he is not. It also appears that many of you have some difficulties with feminists. Well my poor misguided people, feminists are the people who have been and are really change agents-that is why they have been open to attack-again from people who (like yourselves) are afraid. I can only encourage you to work on your thinking skills, your vocabulary and your fear. Please grow up and become responsible citizens instead of name calling goof balls.

I am A member of Puma pac and I believe strongly in what they stand for. I did not like the way that Hillary was treated nor the fact that the media and our party did everthing in thier pwoer to put her down I will not vote for a party that is so in bed with thier own choice he was not elected without MI and Fl I will never see this as real . I have nothing but distaste for the democrat leaders .

Did anyone notice that the donation to McCain was made during the primary when he was running against George W. Bush?

Good for her! Donations do not determine party, voter registrations do.  You got bubcus.

PUMA!

Is Republican always a bad thing?  They helped BO to get where he is today, because majority working class core democrats are for Hillary.

If BO is a Unitor, he should unite the Republicans as well, for those do not like Puma pac due to Republican reasons, may need to ask BO first, why he want their votes in primaries?

BO supporters - you should be mature and smart enough to not point you gun on any 527 Pac.  Otherwise, BO sooner or later will get hurt and he has to apologize of what you did.

Puma pac – DM voted McCain to against Bush, she voted Gore in GE.

You suspect that PUMA is some kind of Republican plot?  You’re overly suspicious.  See a therapist.

The Republicans are going to sit back, relax, and laugh while watching Obama-nation self-destruct.
That’s why we supported Hillary; she knew what she was up against and had the strength of mind and character to counteract it. 

Or, they may let Obama win because he will provide gainful employment to lots of Republican lawyers eager to investigate his associates.  They’re in a win-win situation with this candidate.

Despite tough guy rhetoric and the thug behavior of O’s supporters, you guys are babes in the woods.

Oh, the sweet, sweet taste of crazy.

Obama has done nothing for this country except go to a church that spews hatred of whites and jews and hatred of America.(maybe he should move back to kenya)

Yeah, PUMAs aren’t racist.

And they’re not rude, either, despite all the babbling about kool-aid and Messiahs and orders coming down from the Obama campaign.  Only people who like Obama are rude.

So I’m seeing a few different kinds of PUMAs here:

1) The “Democrats aren’t liberal enough” type.

2) The “I’m a patriotic white American and I don’t trust Obama because he has connections to other countries and also I want black people to be nicer to me” type.

3) The “Obama is a fascist” type, the conspiracy nut.

4) The “Obama is way too liberal” type.

5) The “so fed up with the misogyny that I’m going to stay home” type.  (I think these people are in the minority.)

By rights they should be at each other’s throats.

“By rights they should be at each other’s throats.”

You see Elinor, we’re a big tent constituency, you know, like the Democratic Party used to be before it was taken over by goose stepping koolaid drinking robots that never question their leader no matter how many times he proves his utter inadequacy.

That, to many us is his biggest problem. We know candidates are usually very flawed - goes with the territory. But we see way too much GWB and way too little JFK. We were embarrassed that the country could elect someone like Bush on the basis that you’d “rather have a beer with him”.

I don’t know where you’ve been for the last eight years but I want someone who knows what the f he’s doing. I don’t have to agree with all of his policies, I just want him to be friggin competent, and at least believe himself to be doing what’s best for the country.

That isn’t Obama. All I see is there is self-promotion, political expediency and a whole lot of people under the bus.

Sorry, my first paragraph wasn’t sarcastic enough to convey my meaning.

There’s only one type of PUMA. The Obama is not qualified and was shoved down out throat type.

To continue my point. Would I have voted for say Biden or Edwards with the same type of perceived primary tampering by the DNC? Yeah probably. I’d be pissed Hillary got the shaft but I’d suck it up because I think they, as well as most the other hopefuls, were qualified. I made this decision because I listened to them and they made sounds like they knew what they were talking about.

I never got that from Obama. He could have “gotten it” even though his resume was thin, but he didn’t. He didn’t speak to me. I heard rhetoric, platitudes and a lot of parroting what Hillary just said. He had me at hello and lost me five seconds later. That fact that his campaign seemed to attract and welcome every Hillary hater and misogynist out there made me mad but didn’t shape my opinion of him. 

If it makes you feel better to say I’m racist because of this, go ahead. The term in this political season context has very little meaning anymore.

Sigh….meingoldcountry, you are probably most clearheaded and sensible voice here, but I can’t help but think it is just futile for you or other PUMAs to tell people who cling so tightly to their cherished (however uninformed) opinions, that they’re wrong. This sort of a back-and-forth battle can go on and on and never end. These people who deny that the defecting former-Dems will have an impact on the outcome in Nov. are afraid, they will say anything and do anything to try to “prove” that we won’t affect their candidates chances of winning vs. McCain…including that a lot of Republicans are going to vote for Obama, thereby cancelling out PUMAs’ votes (this is the first time I’ve heard that…I mean, even liberals don’t like Obama, you think Republicans are going to like him?). November’s outcome can only tell who was correct. Don’t waste your breath (or typing power) with these guys (and it seems like they’re mostly guys, or guy wannabes). It’s not worth it.

If there was a white man or woman that was running for president that sat in a KKK meeting for 20 years would I vote for him/her just because he had my issues? NO!!!!!  Barack Obama sat in a church that believes in black theology which is just as bad in my opinion(from my research) for 20 years.  I don’t want anyone that is racist no matter what their skin color representing me or my country.  Give me someone with ideals like Bill Cosby or Rev. Manning that is a democrat and I will vote for him or her.  That is why I am a PUMA.  I will not give up my right to vote and I will vote against Barack Obama in November.  You can call me whatever you want to but it is your insults that make me even more sure of my decision.  I did not vote for Bush either because I knew how he was and what to expect.  Country before Party is the way that I vote. McCain will be president for only 4 years and then maybe we will have some better candidates to choose from.

The PUMAS are real. They number in the millions and they are Hillary Clinton voters who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. We are Democrats who will not fall in line behind and inexperienced, unqualified candidate who was “selected” by a corupt DNC kangaroo court.

You can speculate all you want about who we are .  You will know us by our power in November, if Obama is the Democratic nominee,  we will defeat him.

Just Say No Deal. No Obama.

PUMA

We all know your coalition is a HACK PUMA. You’re lady puma has been exposed left and right

http://yestodemocracy.org/2008/06/30/puma-founder-contributes-more-money-to-mccain-than-clinton/

You see Elinor, we’re a big tent constituency, you know, like the Democratic Party used to be before it was taken over by goose stepping koolaid drinking robots that never question their leader no matter how many times he proves his utter inadequacy.

Hmm.  People who think Democrats should vote for the Democratic candidate are Nazis, cult members, and robots…and also the only people who are rude or call names.

First, I would like to say that I certainly don’t understand where the hatred for your fellow human beings comes from, but I feel sorry for you.  It appears as though hate is fueling a fire inside you for no apparent reason.

I have been a lifelong democrat, I am not a republican and never have been one, nor have been in any way affiliated with the republican party.  I have never once voted for a republican. 

Puma’s are not just women, we are both sexes, a rainbow of colors and sexual orientations, we are all ages from first time voters to lifelong democrats like myself.  We feel this election process has been bias, sexist and one sided from the word go.  We believe the DNC, Dean, Pelosi, and Brazile, are not representing the votes and voices of the people of the democratic party. 

I also feel that BO is in no way morally or ethically ready to be president.  His continued friendships with known criminals is a red flag for me, as are his religious beliefs.  I believe BO is a racist, one who plays the race card whenever it benefits himself.  “Oh and did you notice he is black?”  I believe his treatment of a former First Lady was not only undignified on his part, he has yet to apologize for his actions.  BO also called our former President Clinton a racist, now he needs Bill and Hillary’s help to get elected he thinks he will get it.  All Bill and Hillary have given BO are half-hearted attempts on their parts to appease him.  Hillary has kept her word to support the presumptive nominee, she need do nothing more for him, they owe him nothing.

I see by the map the U.S. is all red, why do you think that is, it’s not just Puma’s who are against the DNC and BO, it seems to be the entire United States is,  your spin doctors need to do a better job.

How about BO’s birth certificate, anyone seen a real copy?  Hawaii says that it lacks the proper seal and signatures, how about showing the American people your real birth certificate?  What are you hiding, that your father is listed as Muslim, Arab?  That you were not born in the United States, which would make you ineligible to run at all.  What is the big deal, why do you feel he is hiding the real birth certificate?  Do you think you could get a real copy?  We are going to try!!!  It is now a matter of public record, since he tried to pass one off online, so if there is a fraud the United States and it’s people can request that Hawaii make the real certificate public.

I will support my candidate of choice Hillary Clinton, I will not support a man of BO’s character, or lack thereof.

I feel sorry for you and all you Obama hate mongers and thugs, we are not going away, there is strength in numbers and I am but one of 18 million, and that scares the hell out of the Obama camp and Obama himself.  The DNC did the American people wrong, and we will right it!

Puma DEMOCRAT
blog.pumapac.org

Assuming any of you Pumas are real, and not a bunch of McCain staffers masquerading behind middle American sounding screennames, I would love to meet you.  Seriously.  Because I have yet to encounter anyone that shares your views, and I would relish the opportunity to talk about your supposed gripes face to face.  Please bring along your unicorns and lach ness monsters, because I’d like to meet them too.

I also notice that the PumaPAC blog forbids any comments that may reflect alternative points of view.  It’s kind of funny that you come on to Pandagon to complain to the high heavens about how Amanda is somehow supressing your free speech, even though she’s clearly allowing all of you to post your rabid comments, but yet your own blog is a highly regulated echo chamber.

Count me as another PUMA Democrat who will not vote for Obama. Yes, Virginia, there really are PUMAS.

Amanda Marcotte, you are a total slimebag.  resorting to tactics of the likes of Malkin to smear your enemies.  I suppose you condone posting personal information on your blog. What a sleaze you are.  Absolutely disgusting.

Oooooh, a Republican “trick.”

Well, if this is what PUMA is, why are leftie Dems so damned scared of the group???

Here’s my take: you’re effing scared because you know that the organization is not some nutcase group of Republicans that are out to bring down Dems. Course, most men are always afraid of women who are organized, so this doesn’t surprise me that you’re trying to discredit PUMA and the other anti-Obama groups.

You folks wouldn’t listen to anybody about the beloved O before he was nominated: he’s NO progressive and he sure as hell ain’t no Democrat. Now you’re starting to see it and you’re blaming PUMA and other anti-O groups for trying to kill your dream.

This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic…

Oh, enough already! Tell Amanda to rule that she is agnostic about PUMAS, and maybe they will all go away.

I don’t doubt there are some Republican and Independent Hillary supporters who have found a home at PUMA. But the vast majority (including Murphy) have been loyal democrats. Most, I have found, are well-versed in the issues and have followed this particular Primary season carefully.

Do not overlook the emotional, gut-wrenching response we felt as we saw Hillary ravaged by the Media, the DNC, and the subtle calculated BO tactic to paint racism on the Clintons and their supporters. Many of us grew to love Hillary as we watched her shine and grow in stature in spite of tremendous obstacles, (her own campaign staff for one.)

However we choose to vote in November, it will be done without enthusiasm. But most of us are center, or center/left. And we really don’t trust BO.

“PUMAs: a soon to become extinct political animal that shortly lived during the year 2008. In the beginning, it seemed to had appeared after some sort of mutation from the democratic species (an accident from nature), but if was actually proven that it was just the result of some failed republican inbreeding experiment run by lame, lame GOP pseudo-political tool creating scientists.”

Just hit your spot and well… you know you have my attention due to your intelligent arguing.  Some I differ with, but then Political Dissent is important and so is dialogue.  I would put before you some evidence and let you judge for yourself.  Intelligent dialogue is all I aspire to. 

What would you say to this woman?  Please let me know.. I will check back later…

Rev. Wright Different isn’t Defective…..Well Duh

by: 1 black Detroit mom aka vote theft victim #3

Sunday April 28th 2008 the Rev. Jeremiah Wright came to Detroit Michigan to address the Michigan NAACP. He gave a sermon with a very focused message, vote Barack Obama and I am not a racist. Well after listening to his sermon and taking time to absorb his oration, I am astounded at just how insulated Rev. Wright must be, ethnically, socially and culturally or is that just what he aspires for his followers?

Apparently the esteemed Rev. Wright has missed a large part of the world I live in. The world I live in is full of color and individual variances, we have blue, green, pink, red and any other color of hair we have people with a lot of cranial accessories (facial jewelry), we have heterosexuals working alongside homosexuals that do not experience discrimination and vice versa, we have white and black and brown and any color you can image that attend church together, work together, we live along side each other, we travel together, our children go to school together, we are involved in our community together, we dine together, we walk through the same doors, we drink from the same fountains. America has been changing, apparently Rev. Wright has not rather it would seem he has hidden from progress.

Rev. Wright was correct about one thing, “different is not defective”. Guess what Rev. Wright. Most of America already knows that and lives it everyday. Although it appears the esteemed Rev. Wright has segregated himself and his community to the point that this concept is new to him. I am going to go Rev. Wright one better, different is not defective different is delightful. Rev. Wright different is beautiful, colorful, and interesting and in this day and age it is not discouraged it is encouraged.

Despite his constant subliminal Vote for Barack Obama “Change is coming” messages, it was apparent rather than seeking unity and progress he was using the art of phraseology and the beautiful spirit filled exuberance of the black church to put emphasis on his underlying message of separatism.

My roots are not in Africa, my ancestors were, my neighbors roots are not in Europe, their ancestors where, my roots are in America. I am a person of color, but I am a American I am not an African and make no mistake my loyalties lie with America Rev. Wright. I do not wish to separate myself nor my family from America I do not wish to see a black America and white America and yellow America and brown America.

Rev. Wright I grew up on welfare in “the projects”. I am now a college graduate a wife and mother of 2 children. I will not teach my children to look for injustices because if they cant make it in this world and rise above the unfairness we all experience in life it is their own deficiencies not societies. If you teach children to look for injustices they will always find them and they will always see others of another color as out to hold them down, with an attitude like that they will never find successes.

I do not now nor have I ever nor will I ever tolerate Ebonics in my household, while we do not speak the English of England or Europe we do speak, in this house, the English of America, because Rev. Wright we are American’s in this house. I am personally sick and tired of hearing all about the mother land Africa, yes our history is beautiful and colorful and sad and frightening and bright and vibrant but my mother land is America my ancestors mother land was Africa. I will tell you what apparently other blacks don’t want to tell you or are afraid to tell you, if you feel so strongly that big bad whitey is out to get you and the mother land Africa needs so much help then you should leave you mansion in Illinois and go to Africa and do you nasty separatist work there.

Beautifully said Barb.  I totally agree with you.

Nice work,  but did anyone here notice that the PUMA person Darrah, had given money to Mcain in 2000 but did it say she gave money to Dubya in 2004?  no I’d bet I also bet she is a dem maybe she gave money to Mccain to help him defeat dubya in 2000?  ever think of that?  huh ?  seems all the internet pundits know whats going in everyone ‘s head.

Now,  the Hillary Clinton Supporters who will vote for McCain are REAL!  I just might be one of them
I’m just collecting data right now.  BUT any of you here who think they’ll just go away or disband you
my friends are delusional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there are many reasons they might vote for mccain
1.  DNC disrespected Hillary and the voters who do not fit their program and the hipocritical
    dean and pelosi want us to GET IN LINE F them!  they don’t own us I only thought we
    once shared views with them but now not so sure.

2.  some folks genuinely think obama has little experience for the trying times the US is in
  while not agreeing with Mccain they think he has more experience than Obama,  and even
    scarier, now relize they actually DO agree with a few things McCain says, in in the process
    decided they are now more in line with the indies,  and HERE’s YOUR REAL WORRY DNC
    they are now doin like Lou Dobbs says-  declaring your independance,  yup re-registering
    as an independant.

3.  there are some who want REAL CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN-  VOTER REFORM IN THE DNC
    ON CHEATING CAUCUSES,  VOTER SUPRESSION, AND SUPERDELAGATES, so they would be
    willing to cast a protest vote to get these things,  silly ? maybe?  democratic, yes as it is
    THEIR vote no owned by the DNC.

4.  women feel wounded, and you may say awwwwwwwwwwwww to bad!  well, this election
    opended wounds about sex,  and until every woman is done with it,  there’s no telling how they
    will vote.

5.  There are many bitter who feel Obama used the race card to his advantage and are clinton
    loyalists and believe Obama ”  belittled him”  and you may say , so did Bill,  but Bill clinton
    is now expected to help Obama,  hell they’ll probably send him on a BUBBA tour to get the
    votes in PA, WV,KY, and where ever else they are worried about , pretty sad if you ask me!

But the real crux of this election for so many is we feel ”  either way we’re F-d ”  and this election
with these two running is really about ,  who is going to run in 2012!

so stop thinkin Puma voters are Repugs, and don’t exsist , because they are real and from what I can see from looking around new sites crop up every day,  and also why would then Rendell want to start
the HOUND group,  little fearful?  eh.

I see no answers here… to my post… nice to see the positive one…LOL

Just a bit more information and this is from another disinfrachised woman from Florida…

Hi ya’ll….Suzanne from Fl (used to be on Hill’s site)…I am sooo glad our numbers are growing and we are organzing and gaining strength in numbers daily! Here’s my letter I posted back before Hill took the only road left to her:

I am 44 years old, and was never much interested in politics. So, you know, when all this primary stuff started a year ago, I really didn’t have much interest in any of the candidates specifically, only “let’s get anyone else in there other than Bush”. But, I started watching the debates and reading up on all the candidates. In a perfect, ideal world, we wouldn’t be voting for a person because of their “Party” and friends, we would be voting for that individual who has a track record of crossing those very lines and trying to get the important things we all want in life: health, wealth, harmony and happiness, regardless of, gasp, party affiliation. Quite quickly, I realized Senator Clinton was head and shoulders above Obama and the others, on every issue, on judgment, character and certainly experience. She frankly blew me away with her command of the issues. I found myself picking the person that has a track record of what I am looking for. That person is Senator Clinton. She has worked hard and diligently for all Americans, and spent years (35) building strong relationships because she has a passionate vision of what America can be. She became MY candidate. “Hill-R-We”, became my mantra.

When I read that the “party leaders were tired” of the Clinton campaign bringing up the FL & MI votes during the past few weeks, I thought: well, E-X-C-U-S-E ME! I am tired of not having a say in a Presidential election, I am tired of not having my vote count, I am tired of no insurance, I am tired of little business in a struggling economy, and I am REALLY tired of some out-of-touch, well-paid, Washington fatcats deciding they know more than their constituents! The straw that broke this voter’s back was the way the DNC mishandled the FL and MI votes. That is NOT democracy, NOT the values of the Democratic Party and certainly NOT my values! They are clueless if they think we will act like lemmings and “fall in line”.

The media has mounted the most biased, blatant one-sided campaign for Obama that frankly reeks of more than just voter suppression. What happened to journalistic integrity? What happened to objective reporting and let the voters decide? The misogynistic, gender bias that exists in this country is deplorable (from pundits, party leaders, the media) and demanding Senator Clinton give in to the DNC and “follow their lead” , they want her to back Obama even after she won the popular vote, it would send a message that it is Ok to trash talk a leading woman politician, to belittle her accomplishments as if she were “just someone’s wife”, and this would send a message to every man out there to pile it on, to ignore and expect every woman to “get in line” like a good girl, for the betterment of society. Even if that very woman is the most accomplished candidate out there, or the most qualified professional for the job. What kind of message is that to send to our mothers, sisters, daughters, and sons?

This primary race has revealed a very flawed, twisted system and I for one am happily going back to my long-term Independent status, since Senator Clinton is not the nominee. I would love nothing more than for Hillary to run as an Independent candidate with 18+ million supporters strong. The Democratic Party is gone in my eyes. They have turned their back on the voters, on Senator Clinton, and on all that is good in this country. Manipulating the media, the voters, and the very “democratic” process itself has exposed our system as nothing better than any other country with flawed elections, tampering and propaganda. Shame on America, Shame on the Democrats, Shame on you DNC.
Senator Clinton is the right choice, the ONLY choice for me in ‘08.

Hillary, my humble message to you is this: Since the “boys club” in Washington can’t take your strength, poise, intelligence and perseverance and the DNC chose instead to nominate an inexperienced, slick, elitist politician, then PLEASE run as an Independent. Your 18 million supporters, to date, are behind you and we want YOU as our next President. Period. If that can’t be, then McCain it is!

Now this is a strong woman… a woman who is intelligent and fine….. got any cuss words for this?

New GOP pac alert?
“America’s Hope Foundation” is going to start running anti-Obama ads—including one that focuses on the NPC accuser (yes—they claim that an ad will publicize the Larry S nonsense)—in swing states on Wednesday, July 2.
See press release:
//www.newswiretoday.com/news/36469/
and the “foundation”
//www.americashopefoundation.com/

I’ve got a little info at my site, but one name seems “linkable” to pro-HRC groups.

Sorry to throw this in here, but I first saw this page yesterday as I was researching the PUMA/Adkins thing. I thought this might interest you here.
Thanks. Cheers…

PUMAs are racist republican biogots that slander, tell ies and defame a good man and his family.
They are affilated with the GOP and shuld be treated as such.  Don’t worry about their vote,
there are as many dissaffected GOPs coming over to the Dems ( hagel, powell).  It will be a landslide.
PUMAs are EviL , foul, lust after Shamminty and Orally and should not be engaged.
It takes 2 fools to argue.

Barb-Once again that was beautiful and my sentiments exactly.  There is nothing else I can say that you haven’t already expressed for me.  Thank you.

MariaWr 8:42pm

So childish and churlish. If we Pumas are so inconsequential, why are you in such a dither? Just ignore us. We’ll do what we must.

Not all Democrats for McCain are disaffected feminists. There’s a growing organization out there. As someone has already pointed out, a check for McCain in 2000 and another when Clinton was effectively out in 2008 hardly sounds like a Republican ratfuck.

I’ve voted for Dems in every presidential election (until this one), and I was a big fan of McCain in 2000, thinking he’d be the best alternative if Gore didn’t win. So it’s hardly unusual.

I’m always amazed at the idiots who act as if Democrats will, by definition, back the person nominated. If that’s all it takes, then why bother having the primary in the first place? Save a bunch of money, go back into the smoke-filled room, and come out with a nominee. Democrats will, of course, blindly support the nominee.

The movement isn’t fake. It’s quite genuine. And yes, most of the blogs were started purely to support McCain or purely to agitate against Obama, or whatever. I have two different blogs and a forum—I still started a site just to convince Dems not to vote for an empty shell in a nice suit.

Andy, how we organize our forum is not the point.  www.blog.pumapac.org is not a Republican organization.  I am not a paid blogger.  No one in our group is.  Deal with the dissent - it is real and it has meaning.  The ability to share political dissent is what has given our country such a rich history.  What we are complaining about is being attacked personally for stating our views.  Darragh Murphy has done nothing to deserve these personal attacks.  That is the issue.  To state a view that does not support Obama results in personal attacks.  And you wonder why our blog is closed to it.  Generally, people don’t like to be bullied.  PUMAs are no different.

First of all I just want to say that It is really disconcerting to see you put the home address of someone on the front page of this blog, while at the same time you are launching an attack on her. I see what kind of scruples you have already. Let me tell you something. The PUMA group are not all republicans. We are young and old, black and white, yellow and brown. We are rich and poor, we are male and female. We do not proclaim to be feminists, nor do we spread hate or violence. We are a group of people who are sick and tired of a party that has selected a nominee and not elected him. We are tired of being told not to speak up and to fall in line for something that has clearly been calculated all along. This is not about race, nor is it just about Hillary. It is about our freedoms, and our right to political dissent. We are in this situation again almost 8 years later, about to lose yet another election because of selfish, money hungry, power hungry sellouts. We have been called every name in the book, We have watched a former First Lady, and one of the best Presidents this country has ever seen be ridiculed, mocked, cursed at, and more. Members Party Unity Means Action will continue to hold accountable those members of the dnc, the media and individuals involved with voter intimidation, voter fraud responsible for yet another loss of an elected democrat in office. We also hold them responsible for the division they have cause in our own party, and we will continue to say..NO DEAL

Would you mind explaining to me the reason you are opposed to political dissent?
I’m not asking you to vote the way I will, why are you so upset that I will not vote the way you will?
Is there no room for people to think and decide for themselves?

“PUMAs are racist republican biogots that slander, tell ies and defame a good man and his family.”
If this statement isn’t a case of projection, I don’t know what is.

joshua- your ignorant comment speaks for itself. And really, what in your opinion makes obama a “good man”. It was ok for this good man to defame as you say, middle class Americans? It was ok for this good man to call Hillary names? are you even old enough to vote? And excuse me…but how do you know what race I am? Not all blacks fell for the okie doke.

If Puma is all about exposing truth and giving people a voice, then why do they rip out the tongues (posts) of anyone who is counter to their brainwashing on the pumapac site? .... And why do they keep saying they are 18million strong? I’m willing to bet the real amount is closer to 1800.
I’m pretty sure there are a few puma’s that are mad Hillary lost but well she lost. To say that she won the popular vote is ummm a bit of a stretch and as far as Florida and Michigan go, You should be happy she got the votes she did, they didn’t have to give her or Obama any.

Pumabot, as a Floridian, I have to say you miss the real point.  First, Hillary did win the popular vote by several hundred thousand.  Second, both Florida and Michigan should be counted because every vote should have meaning.  Otherwise, why participate in the process?  The voters in Florida and Michigan had no control over when the primaries were set.  In Florida, it was a Republican leadership that moved the primary date.  And in Michigan, Obama threatened to sue Michigan if his name was put on the ballot!  Frankly I think it is silly for the DNC to have the rules about the primary time table.  But, beyond that, it is important to note that re-votes were offered and Obama’s campaign said no.  And the decisions made on May 31 about the delegates were done in secret, in violation of the RBC’s own rules.  So, yeah, Hillary’s supporters are mad, but this is bigger than Hillary and Obama.  This is about voters having a voice in government.  I have never been a fan of the electoral college, and I am just about ready to campaign for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

The following is a post from the puma website from puma member AliceinFlorida ....

AliceinFlorida on 07.01.08 at 9:53 pm

  “Obama is a skunk - black and white and stinks to high heaven

  And Michelle - well, Michelle wanna-be-Jackie reminds me of June Cleaver with a tan and a big butt

  One has to wonder - does she wear her pearls while cleaning out the skunk’s toilet?”

Gotta love those puma clowns. And they wonder why people give them no respect. What a bunch of nitwits.

“Nitwit” seems like a gentle word for that sort of bigotry.

The more I read of their opinions in their own words, the more I’m convinced that the PUMAs are the new Paulites, only worse.

Heather,
I am also from Florida and the reason Florida was stripped is here .......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html

Please provide me a reputable link to a site that verifies the puma claim of Hillary winning the popular vote.
I’ll be waiting for the link.

“The following is a post from the puma website from puma member AliceinFlorida ....

And Michelle - well, Michelle wanna-be-Jackie reminds me of June Cleaver with a tan and a big butt “

If that’s not pure racism, aimed specifically at blacks, nothing is.
These PUMA McLames are equally as disgusting as any Neocon BushCo has come up with.
Just as vile and depraved as the PNAC and all pro-war, anti-privacy, treasonous organizations.

Straight to Hell with them all.

the last post is one selected by “pumabot” in lieu of many others with quite different language and quite different content.

The Pumablog is being HOUND’ED by Obama supporters, at their site and where ever they blog indentifying themselves as a PUMA.

AliceinFlorida is not a PUMA.

Go to GretaWire post from last night, 6/30, on Pumas, and see how many of the like of AliceinFlorida pretended to be Puma members, how they differed from most others commenting, how obviously not Pumas they were.

Anonymity breeds lies and paranoia, much of with I see here regarding consideration of Puma’s.

Foul language belies the character of the writer, here and anywhere.

When the votes are counted in November many myths will be melted down to its base elements. Yacking is helpful, voting is real action.

signed,

Puma member (who is not heterosexual, not a Repunlican, not an Obama supporter, and a critically thinking voter, who will not need to visit this site again to get “information”

Hillaryhead,
Just so you know there are many posts on that pathetic site similar to the one I copied here. I should post some of the replies to it, but I am sure that you will say that they were planted by a paid Obama supporter as well.
puma’s = Paranoid Unstable Mindless American’s

I am a Hillary supporter almost from day one after I realized John Edwards was a no-starter.
Then I was wrong about him too—just another pol whol drank the Kool Aid and will fall
into the prone position to get his tummy rubbed.  What was he promised?

So many of the Obambi devotees of high national profile are presidential wannabes—losers.

The call for Party unity is as big a ploy as the whole Dem primary season…I am now a reregistered
Indy because I will no longer tolerate political corruption that ties both major branches of
America’s political spectrum.  Dems and Repubs are a disgrace. speaking volumes about our dying
democratic republic. 

I don’t know how legit PUMA is and it is irrelevant because the next president has already been
chosen.  I think it will be Obama; he is more susceptible to manipulation by the
real powers who make these decisions.  His character is such his ambition will trump any
good instincts that might arise.  He has been called an empty suit, a hollow man and an
unknown quanity by observers with greater experience in paritisan politics than me or
those who post on these blogs—opinions from both far-left and right pundits or essayists.

His campaign was a Madison Ave. marketing invention that even a pharmaceutical company
might envy.  How dumb do you have to be to fall for the shtick?  Or how well-paid to fall
in line?  What other blogs other than Daily Kos, Move-On or the Huffington Post are glomming
onto the gravy train?  Who do you trust?  That is the question.  It’s all fun and games and
when the party is over, we will pick up the pieces.

Be careful Pandagon, you’re sure to be the riddled with personal attacks now.

Hi “Mabelle,”

You wrote: “Course, most men are always afraid of women who are organized, so this doesn’t surprise me that you’re trying to discredit PUMA and the other anti-Obama groups.”

You may not be aware of this, since you apparently mindlessly followed your leader’s request to comment here, but Pandagon is one of the most progressive feminist blogs on the internet.  We’re not a bunch of guys sitting around, grabbing our crotches, complaining about “women who are orgnaized.”  In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were actually a man, with a female moniker (Mabelle?  Seriously?), who typed this believing it’s what a feminist might say.  It reads as extremely forced and inauthentic.

Our problem with PumaPac is that it purports to be a feminist response to the outcome of the democratic primary, but is anything but.  Given that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg are likely to retire in the next few years, and given that John McCain has promised to appoint more Roberts’s and Alitos to the Court, your acts of dissent are short sighted, self-indulgent, and likely to set reproductive rights back fifty years.  This election is not about sending a muddied message to the democratic party about its pre-set primary rules; it is about preventing the irreversible damage to the environment, the economy, and America’s credibility that will inevitably occur if McCain is elected.  So when we challenge your irresponsible and uninformed statements, it’s because we feel your “movement” will be harmful to women in general as well as the direction of this country. 

In sum, now that it’s been established that your founder is clearly a fraud, either explain to me how McCain is somehow more progressive than Obama, or stay on your own insular website (which I would be happy to comment on as well, but I’m positive I’d be silenced as a result of its “no other viewpoints” policy.)

The Obama fans are restless tonight, eh?

Seems some are hearing that others have noticed how Obama deflects critism, and promotes himself, via racial innuendo sent out by surrogates - or in fewer words - by being a racist.  Calling or implying indirect via Obama’s David to be sure, that the Clinton’s were racist or made or allowed racist remarks was a great “uniting” game plan, now wasn’t it?

Given all the “just campaign talk” explanations for folks not to believe Obama on NAFTA, out of Iraq in 16 months, social programs that have no cost because we do not plan to pass them (as told to Kudlow on CNBC), using public financing of elections, FISA filibuster, why do folks wonder why some folks want Hillary as VP so as to make those campaign promises actually something that is fought for?  And see McCain as a better bet for positive social change if Hillary is not on the ticket given today’s news that Obama continues to make those “advisor comments claiming all is just campaign talk” turn out to be the truth.

Those 4 million PUMA include a few males by the way - and not just “old” - over 40 - types.  Seems PUMA’S have had it with the daily requirement placed on Obama fans that they must find an excuse for a newly revealed Obama lie or flip/flop, always taking for the 4 standard Obama responses (I love the “this is just a diversion from the real issues”) plus of course the “those that oppose Obama are racist”.

By the way - just why did Obama not register for the draft as required by law, and why does his birth certificate not have the required stamped signature -albeit that it does have the seal, if a copy that may have been photoshopped before being put up by Kos is to be believed.  Interesting the Koss has stopped all donations to Obama over the FISA problem.  Kos should come over here and feel the Obama love!  LOL

papau,

i’m not a fan of obama, but i am sick of the birth certificate brouhaha. the comparison certificate that another poster provided was scanned much darker/higher contrast than the copy of obama’s certificate put up by kos. if you take that image of obama’s certificate from dkos and play with it in photoshop, you can see what looks like part of a stamped signature or date.

find something better to worry about.

“Pandagon is one of the most progressive feminist blogs on the internet.”

Really now? I’ve been reading this blog on and off since 2006 and I haven’t noticed feminism around here. Sure, I’ve seen the word thrown around a lot, but all of Marcotte’s positions amount to is this watered down girl power. In this post itself, she calls feminists who won’t fall in line and vote for Obama “hysterical bitches with no common sense who subsist on outrage, can’t act in their own self-interest because of their feminine-addled brains, and can safely be ignored.” Do you think men, and non-feminists, would be feeling free to adopt this narrative of women being what she describes in this post, if women like her weren’t agreeing with them? She’s enabling sexist narratives. She’s no feminist, or at least her feminism doesn’t seem to apply to feminists who make different political choices than she does.

And any feminist who centers all of their feminist ideals around reproductive issues, PLUS adds anything and everything else to the list of what women should be focusing on as feminist issues—i.e. the economy, the war, the environment, and the list goes on and on—-by pointing out how these issues might affect a woman (duh, everything does, but not all things do so equally…)...is rather unfocused to say the least.

Anyways, I’m done commenting on this blog. It’s infuriatingly narrow-minded.

The solution is simple, for yet another Tweedledum and Tweedledee between Clinton and Obama.

Vote Green.

Vote Socialist.

Vote Social Democratic.

If there’s a real progressive party in your state, that’s your vote.

PUMAS,

I hated Obama during the primaries. I thought the only thing he had going for him was his smile. I thought he lacked experience in comparison to Clinton, and I suspected that he would soon lose some of his magic unity pony charisma.

However, now that Clinton bowed out of the race and he won the nomination, I have come to appreciate some of his positions on the issues I care about. He is pro death penalty, which I would have never expected from a “Democrat.” I am a democrat and I consider myself to be a fairly liberal person socially speaking, but I am totally for the death penalty and so glad that Obama is, too.

I am fine with Obama’s faith-based initiatives because frankly, if churches and mosques and synagogues can get people to do good shit for others and themselves, then fine with me. I don’t really have a problem with churches discriminating against queer people because as a queer sort of person, I discriminate against churches. I don’t give them much and don’t expect too much in return, but it’s fine that he’s thinking outside of the box, so to speak.

The FISA compromise is also one I can live with, even though I am highly doubtful that any super dangerous terrorist activities were intercepted as a result of the unlawful spying. Still, I can understand the need for wiretaps and secret monitoring of communications in times such as the aftermath of 9-11. I would understand the need *more,* mind you, if I didn’t secretly half-believe that the Bush Admin was actually responsible for 9-11 ... but in any case, I am willing to be schizophrenic and forget that I think that and say, “What the fuck, go ahead and spy on the fucking peace groups, the Taco Bell stands, the Nation, the left-wing pinko asshats who think they are being spied on, whatever.” Seriously: I am fine with Obama’s compromise and I think KOS can go fuck themselves.

Obama is still better than McCain on the issues I care about as a feminist and as a woman. I am secretly hoping for a big Obama scandal so that Hillary will have to become the nominee by proxy, but until that day comes, I think we should go with the person who is closest to our spirit and our ideals, and that for me is Obama.

I think I figured it out when the moderators refused to publish my posts. which were articulate, reasonable and called them out on logical fallacy.

OK, db, and “avenging Hillary Clinton” is a comprehensive, coherent feminist ideology….

onoo… you are popping db “genius” fantasy. heh.

(I have to say PUMA is the dumbest collection of nutballs this site of the internet. It uses all the obvious argument strategy and talking point.  Thanks for listing it here folks. It’ll come handy next time.)

So db, now that you bring up “Feminism”
do tell us… what is feminism to you? in your own word…
and this better be good, or I will laugh at you so called genius ass who claim to know better.

so go on… time to show your stuff.

a basic question: “what is feminism? and what is it to you?”

Way to go, Amanada, you’ve proven nothing.
At what point do you plan to notice the very real offense that women AND men have at how ugly the primary was and at how Barack Obama used homophobia and didn’t called out for it?
Keep kidding yourself and he’ll lose for sure.  You’re not helping his chances with this garbage. 
There are about 20 elephants in the room with more waiting in the hallway.  For Democrats to win in November, those issues need to be addressed.

this better be good? who the hell are you?

If I have time later in the day, maybe i will do you a favor and tell you what feminism means to me. by no means do i consider myself obligated to explain myself to you. whatever i say feminism means to me, you will start arguing with me about why it should resemble your sense of “girl power!” and then the back and forth commenting will have the potential to go on forever. i don’t have time for that (maybe you do, genius, but not everyone else does…)

wow. 

what a fucking OBOT you are.

ah yes, bluster.

next would be spinning, parsing, dissembling, then outright lying.

You are blustering because you know you can\‘t square your messy and contradictory positions. You don\‘t even know what you are defending or fighting for. It\‘s all reactionary kneejerk. You do it because somebody told you and few idiots around you do it too. But you can\‘t really explain it when faced with basic and sensible questions.

I am pretty sure you don\‘t know what feminism is, considering how jingoistic and contradictory your posts have been. I was wondering it was all a cute game. But now I am pretty sure you ARE that dumb.

you can run and hide now, exiting the scene while slamming the door like you actually something.

To any feminist thinking of voting Green and wondering what their positions on issues of concern to women are:

Here is a link to their 2004 platform. There 2008 one is apparently a work in progress:

http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/          click on Women’s rights

a. We support the equal application of the Constitution to all citizens, and therefore call for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). We urge accelerated ratification by three or more of the remaining 15 states that are required to pass ERA into law and into the Constitution. We urge renewed efforts and campaigns to ratify the ERA. We support House Resolution 98, using the precedent of a three-state strategy for ratification.

b. We call for equal representation of women in Congress instead of the current 13%.

c. The Green Party calls for U.S. passage of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, which was adopted in 1979 by the U.N. General Assembly and ratified by 173 countries. The U.S. is one of the very few countries, and the only industrialized nation, that have not ratified it.

d. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission should actively investigate and prosecute sexual harassment complaints. Women who file complaints must not be persecuted and should be protected under federal and state law. We must enshrine in law the basic principle that women have the same rights as men, and promote gender equality and fairness in the work force to ensure that women receive equal pay for jobs of equal worth.

e. We support the inclusion of an equal number of women and men in peace talks and negotiations, not only because these efforts directly affect their lives and those of their husbands, children and families, but also because when women are involved, the negotiations are more successful.

Etc….

And to the people who are wondering what feminism means to me, go to that link, click on women’s rights, and you will see broadly what feminism means to me. The Green party does a good job on women’s issues—obama not so much (i’ve been to his site at the women’s issues part and it is all so very vague). ciao.

To the dumbass swan

you are probably the dumbest person i have seen commenting on this site. please go get a brain before you embarrass yourself any further

Which part of “in your own word” do you not understand.

On top of that, if you quoting the green platform, even those is not compatible with “PUMA”/I’ll vote McCain stand. (not to mention you are so obviously desperate to keep the “we urge people to stay home, and we are multi partisan coaliton facade.)

second biggest and most important issues, most often talked around her at least. Are reproductive right. Those are not in grp you quoted. What’s your position? (You can’t hide in green platform my dear, they don’t have one.)

and lastly. there is practical reason related to maintaining or achieving visible legal fight. (Scotus, reducing GOP majority, taking out extreme rightwing legislators, etc etc)

PS. I can link dump you too. I am pretty sure I am faster than you when it come to goggling. so try using your “genius” mind instead of pathetically relying on green party page. What’s next? quoting libertarian? maybe you should quote michael savage next… lol

Also to the dumbass swan: part of my definition of feminism is that working and professional women should be able to compete in an environment in which they are not discriminated against in sexist terms or due to their gender. This discrimination nowadays is more subtle or covert than overt, since people are PC enough not to say outright the kind of misogynistic things that were freely said in the 1960s.

So to the dumbass swan and likeminded individuals who failed to observe the sexism in the primaries, educate yourselves; here are some reading recommendations:

By Nijole V. Benokraitis:

Modern Sexism: Blatant, Subtle, and Covert Discrimination

Subtle Sexism: Current Practice and Prospects for Change

And dumbass swan I’m done with you. You keep telling yourself you’re so feminist (which you probably do) but you are not more feminist than your joke of a feminist leader Marcotte. Go ahead and make self-defeating choices for the rest of your life. After all, you are “choosing” it, so it MUST be good for you, eh?

The Green Party doesn’t have a position? Perhaps you missed this on the same link:

Reproductive Rights

f. Women’s rights must be protected and expanded to guarantee each woman’s right as a full participant in society, free from sexual harassment, job discrimination or interference in the intensely personal choice about whether to have a child.

g. Women’s right to control their bodies is non-negotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available. The “morning- after” pill must be affordable and easily accessible without a prescription, together with a government-sponsored public relations campaign to educate women about this form of contraception. Clinics must be accessible and must offer advice on contraception and the means for contraception; consultation about abortion and the performance of abortions, and; abortion regardless of age or marital status.

h. We endorse women’s right to use contraception and, when they choose, to have an abortion. This right cannot be limited to women’s age or marital status. Contraception and abortion must be included in all health insurance policies in the U.S., and any state government must be able to legally offer these services free of charge to women at the poverty level. Public health agencies operating abroad should be allowed to offer family planning, contraception, and abortion in all countries that ask for those services. We oppose our government’s habit of cutting family planning funds when those funds go to agencies in foreign countries that give out contraceptive devices, offer advice on abortion, and perform abortions.

i. We encourage women and men to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is the inalienable right and duty of every woman to learn about her body and to be aware of the phases of her menstrual cycle, and it is the duty for every man to be aware of the functions and health of his and his partner’s bodies. This information is necessary for self determination, to make informed decisions, and to prevent unintended consequences. Unplanned conception takes control away from individuals and makes them subject to external controls. The “morning-after” pill and option of a safe and legal abortion need to remain available.

I am pro-choice. But repro rights are not the end all be all of feminism, at least not to me (maybe it is to you and on this site, but then again, i guess that’s what “girl power!” is all about)

reproductive right is far more fundamental than working environment. Healthy and sensible/growing economy is far more condusive to acceptance of women in working place than jingoistic dance about misogyny.

All these are not compatible with McCain agneda. (he said it himself about gender discrimination vs wage, trade, reproductive right, national fiscal policy, war position)

on top of that, green party is not in position to achieve what you want any time near future. Only delusional idiot actually believe they can.

“reproductive right is far more fundamental than working environment.”

Yeah, if you’re a loser who doesn’t work but spends all day commenting on blogs!

“Healthy and sensible/growing economy is far more condusive to acceptance of women in working place than jingoistic dance about misogyny.”

Right…..in the past we have had a healthy economy that was not conducive to acceptance of women, and we will again in the future if Obama is president.

I conclude that you are one of those fauxgressive guys who is here on pandagon because he is enamored with the thought of a “girl power!” leader like Marcotte having “seen the light” and backed Obama. Continue your hero worship of Obama—don’t let feminism or women’s rights get in the way.

All you people who think you’re reading a feminist blog—see what kind of loonies like this site? That says it all about how “feminist” this site it. Fucking hypocrites.

db(or anyone else), could you please link to one concrete example of Obama being sexist or misogynist?  Please post it here. 

Meanwhile, we always have this wonderful example of feminism:
“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.”
-John McCain

Getting back to Darragh Murphy(which is where this discussion began), giving money to Clinton in order to position herself as a pissed off democrat is called “covering ones ass”.  She gave $500 to McCain.  She never donated ANYTHING to any democrat before (at the earliest, according to here) March 2008.  If she truly gave a damn about Hillary, she would have started a PAC BEFORE Clinton withdrew from the race (as Marcotte mentioned)  She’s a republican shill posing as a democrat.  I’m sure some of you actually believe the puma conspiracy theories, if you do, you should kick Murphy out of the puma “movement”.

In collapsing economy, women will have to pay the most because a) man does not have to pay reproductive cost b) company will fire woman first, they cost more to maintain health insurance and things related to child rearing.

Nevermind somebody slap your ass and calling you sweaty. In collapsing economy, without legal protection of reproductive right, your genius ass will be canned first. You cost too much.

Both McCain and Hillary are unable to credibly solve middle east politics. In case your genius head is too far up your ass, oil price reached $143 yesterday and Meryll just said GM bankruptcy is possible.

You want to talk about how the upper mangement at GM is not condusive to women? be my guest.  In the meantime, GM itself is gone under McCain and Hillary scenario.

So, what does average female worker has in such scenario? pretty talk about misogyny and covert discrimination. Try bleeding to death without medical coverage first.

But hey, what do you care right? Let’s vote McCain ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN0235635220080702

Merrill says GM bankruptcy possible, shares drop

Hi db,

“Yeah, if you’re a loser who doesn’t work but spends all day commenting on blogs!”

Considering that you’ve authored literally dozens of posts on this thread, I’m not sure that you’re in a position to hurl this particular criticism at anyone. 

You’re coming off as extremely unhinged, and I hope you aren’t as insufferable in real life as you are on the screen. 

The point of this post was the the founder of the Puma Pac has demonstrably been a McCain supporter for several years.  And while she may have convinced her fans that she only donated to McCain that one time in order to prevent Bush from becoming the nominee, there is no indication that she subsequently donated to Al Gore in the general election, and there are obviously no public records revealing how she cast her vote.  It is therefore possible to infer that PumaPac may not be what it purports to be, and is likely part of a movement that has been orchestrated by McCain supporters in order to perpetuate certain myths about Obama and develop a media narrative about a disunified party.  I don’t think that’s an unreasonable inferential leap, particularly given some of the comments I’ve read above.

To pathetic swan: I only have time to address one point right now:
“In collapsing economy, women will have to pay the most because a) man does not have to pay reproductive cost b) company will fire woman first, they cost more to maintain health insurance and things related to child rearing.”

man does not have to pay reproductive cost? what the hell does that mean? mind elaborating?

company will not fire a woman first. have any evidence/statistics showing that women actually cost more to maintain health insurance to back up your words?

finally, most companies DON’T offer on-site day-care or other day-care costs. in this respect the US has backslid since maybe the early 80s when this was actually taken care of by businesses more. and how on earth does it matter if Gm is bankrupt or other companies are going downhill if women are discriminated against in hiring and promotion despite equal qualifications with men. please explain such dumbass reasoning to me. sounds like you are just looking at the bottom line for MEN.

Stop talking out of your ass and get some real info. Your retardation is not worth taking time out to reply to.

That’s right, mandie.  Everyone who disagrees with you and who doesn’t worshipp your Obamagod is totally a republican and out to hurt your man.

Yep, that’s totally right.

Don’t bother to actually talk to any.  Don’t bother to actually think, at all.  Just broadly insult and disparge millions of women because they insulted your man.

Thanks for making it so easy to point and laugh at your fauxfeminism.

Hi Jen,

I wish I cared how insufferable you think I am. Unfortunately for you I don’t.

And as for the posts I am posting, I am hoping that some rational feminist will come out thinking a little about what they are doing reading a site that stereotypes the very group (feminists) that it claims to represent. This doesn’t include you. Please feel free to ignore my posts and stick to thinking about the PUMA pac front that was used by Marcotte to stereotype all feminists who won’t vote Obama.

Bye!

Fortunately for me, db, you clearly do. 

Good luck finding a rational feminist that won’t believe you’re a raving lunatic.  If you had made any attempt to engage in some sort of remotely civil discourse, maybe you could have gotten your point across.  But you chose to be an asshole, instead.

Bye!

“Good luck finding a rational feminist that won’t believe you’re a raving lunatic.”

—Good luck trying to stigmatize and marginalize feminists who won’t vote for Obama by calling them “raving lunatics” and see how far it gets you in life. This take-it-up-the-ass feminism that so-called feminists like you have adopted has done next to nothing for women. It is just another way of being male-identified.

Take your eyes off the guys Jen. Vote for whom you like but do not attack women who are complaining about things like workplace discrimination, which you and other girl power fanatics apparently think takes last place on the list of feminism’s concerns.

You could actually make posts pointing out SEXISM. But would you attack that? NOOOO. Jen is a good little girl. She will get her lolly from some Daddy-figure.

So long pipsqueaks. I actually have business to take care of today so I can’t take the time to properly make fun of every MRA-nut and take-it-up-the-ass fauxfeminist on this site. Toodles!

Once again db, please post links to actual sexist/misogynist statements made by Obama (or actual campaign leaders like Gibbs, Axelrod,Plouffe etc) against Hillary Clinton.  Neither you nor I has any other business to take care of in the next hour or so, you know it too. 

So please, post some actual sexist quotes from Obama, maybe I’ll take the pumas’ arguments seriously.  Anyone else who has actual quotes can post them if db fails to take up the challenge.

Amanda, sorry but your assertions about PUMA and Murphy are inaccurate. PUMA is not a feminist movement and we are not Republicans. You are assuming Murphy is a GOP op for McCain based on a donation she made during the 2000 primary. Wow, she also admitted that she voted for McCain in the primary too. She is really hiding something. Think about it, if she was a McCain supporter, then why didn’t she donate to him this time? Why are all of her political donations to Hillary? It doesn’t make any sense. It isn’t a vast conspiracy. It’s like saying that all the Democrats that Kos got to vote for and support Republicans to cause mischief during the primaries are now Republicans too. Does this mean that Kos is a Republican for starting it. Hmmm. 

Now, this post is your opinion and this is your blog, so you have every right to express it. But facts are facts, and you don’t have all of them. You have a donation and nothing more. I took the time to research this further and correspond with Murphy. See PUMA Pac Founder, Murphy, “NOT a Republican” posted on MyDD.

Oh crap… I think kidlacan was right all along. The demented Swan is squashed…

I’ll note that there are at *least* five posts where the poster db says she’s done with this site, but (s)he keeps posting away. Clear sign of a troll.

Based solely on their grammatical style (run-on sentences, ad-hominem attacks, grammar that would embarrass a high schooler) and not their actual content, I’d say nearly every PUMA on this thread is a slack-jawed moron.

But, we’ll see who is right come November, won’t we?

max singer-it’s rather sad that you’re reading a “feminist” site (i take it pretty regularly, just a guess) and yet you are asking me if I can give you examples of sexism in the primaries? i guess i’m not surprised, because i’m sure marcotte didn’t bother spoon feeding it to you yet, since she probably didn’t notice it either. by the way if you weren’t intellectually lazy, you would have looked it up yourself….

http://womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-sexism-watch-part-eighty.html

—-this blog documented pretty much all the sexism against HRC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051504058.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc080513.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902729_pf.html

http://blog.hillary-clintons-voice.com/sexism-in-this-election-946

http://www.slate.com/id/2193755/

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/07/feel-the-misogyny/

i’m sure there are more examples, but those should keep you busy. Oh and Norsecats, yeah I kept coming back because the things some idiots say just bug the hell out of me and I’m too tempted to respond. And yes, we definitely WILL see who is right come November. hooray for that.

oh yeah, and norsecat, if a troll is anyone who disagrees w/ marcotte or you, then I guess I’m a troll…

Actually, db, Max asked for

actual sexist/misogynist statements made by Obama (or actual campaign leaders like Gibbs, Axelrod,Plouffe etc) against Hillary Clinton.

Links to general sexism and misogyny directed against Hillary don’t answer that.  Do you have any that do answer Max’s question?

OK, db, against my better judgment, I’ll engage.

Max Singer asked for actual sexist statements made by Obama, Axelrod, Plouffe, Gibbs.  You provided links to articles and videos demonstrating how sexist the media is.  I certainly agree that various cable news networks and some rabid supporters of both candidates frequently displayed shamefully sexist and racist behavior, language, attitudes.  But you didn’t answer his question, or offer support for your argument that Obama is sexist.

However, the only “evidence” I’ve ever seen in support of the assertion that Barack Obama is sexist is that he said “you’re likeable enough,” he imitiated J-Z brushing off his shoulders, he called a reporter Sweetie, and he won the primary.  I looked at all the examples you sent, and while they affirm that sexism is still extremely pervasive and ostensibly socially acceptible, I did not see anything that Barack Obama should be held accountable for.  Conversely, John McCain has made countless documented comments and many legislative choices that are explicitly anti-women. 

For the record, I voted for and have a deep affection for Hillary Clinton.  But I don’t for a second believe that Barack Obama is sexist, just as I don’t for a second believe that Hillary Clinton is racist.  I also think it’s very harmful when supporters of either candidate try to debate whether sexism of racism is worse/more problematic/more ubiquitous.  They both intersect, they both reared their head during the primary, and they both suck. 

If you want to vote for a third party, fine.  I’ve done that before and regretted it.  As a queer feminist environmentalist etc., I believe my values are much more aligned with Barack Obama than with John McCain, and they are the only two viable choices for president.  It is very important to me that McCain does not become president, and I personally feel that voting for the green party candidate will not effectively send a message to MSNBC that some of their pundits are misogynists.

Also, as much as I like to dance to Wannabe and Spice up Your Life every now and then, I don’t think I qualify as a “girl power” feminist.  And trust me, I don’t take it up the ass.

Alright, I’m done.  Antagonize away.

let’s see….from Obama—the condescending “You’re likable enough” comes to mind, as does his repeated suggestion that Hillary did nothing as a first lady but drink tea with diplomats, and his statements suggesting that she wouldn’t have been senator if she wasn’t Bill Clinton’s wife (that she has no achievements of her own and was riding on his coattails into the position of senator). I could spend some time digging up when these statements were said and where but i just don’t think it’s worth the effort. NOt to mention that the shit always runs downhill…just because you can’t track most of the misogyny back to BO or his campaign leaders doesn’t mean they weren’t involved in many of the sexist attacks. The people in charge never get in trouble—it’s the one’s who carry out orders who get in trouble. With his attitude of watchful waiting—just standing by on the sidelines and watching his campaign surrogates and the media and Dem. Party pummel HRC with sexism—shows that he condoned the misogyny against her, and maybe even gave orders to use it—maybe some research into his campaign in the future will give more info about this that we just don’t have right now because it is too soon. After all, you didn’t see him making any statements against sexism during the primaries, whereas HRC stated on TV several times that she was not glad that BO was falsely being accused of being a Muslim.

Anyways, toodles—I have to study for a licensing exam so I don’t really have a heck of a whole lot of time to write here. Best wishes.

OK. so when asked when \“Obama\” ever said it, you are posting \“media\” chatter. Are you suggesting Obama control the media? (oh that\‘s right you say \”.just because you can

I could spend some time digging up when these statements were said and where but i just don’t think it’s worth the effort.

It clearly is, or you wouldn’t keep coming back.  You expended a bit of effort to gather “general sexism against Hillary” links.  Why not this?

NOt to mention that the shit always runs downhill…just because you can’t track most of the misogyny back to BO or his campaign leaders doesn’t mean they weren’t involved in many of the sexist attacks. The people in charge never get in trouble—it’s the one’s who carry out orders who get in trouble. With his attitude of watchful waiting—just standing by on the sidelines and watching his campaign surrogates and the media and Dem. Party pummel HRC with sexism—shows that he condoned the misogyny against her, and maybe even gave orders to use it—maybe some research into his campaign in the future will give more info about this that we just don’t have right now because it is too soon.

In other words, you got nothin’.  That’s all you had to say. 

whereas HRC stated on TV several times that she was not glad that BO was falsely being accused of being a Muslim.

Maybe so, but remember this?

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

May 7, 2008, USA Today.  Emphasis mine.  HRC’s hands are not clean, here.

Anyways, toodles—I have to study for a licensing exam so I don’t really have a heck of a whole lot of time to write here. Best wishes.

Right. 

Anybody taking bets db keeps coming back until this thread is long-since over and puts in one last post so s/he can say they got the last word?

that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

how is that racist? she is talking of different demographics—hardworking Americans (which could include anyone) and white americans. lol. talk about seeing something that’s not there.

yeah, i’m easily distracted by anything related to sexism, because sexism pisses me off (as it should any feminist). if that makes me an annoyance to you, so be it.

as for “i got nothin” i’m sure i would also have nothing if BO watched as Hillary got raped in front of him—not participating, just watching, but not doing anything to stop it. Is he then still not culpable-after all, he didn’t participate, did he?

as for swan, i didn’t want to say this because i have family who have accented english, but your english is atrocious. before you go around calling others names, you might want to improve your grammar.

and fyi seraph, the misogyny at the root of what was targeted at HRC is the same misogyny at the root as acts such as rape. so you tell me whether there can be anything such as an “innocent bystander” who witnesses a woman targeted with misogyny and does nothing to stop it. i’d love to hear your response.

when in a hole stop digging. You lost your argument several hours ago.

You can\‘t explain why people vote for Obama thus fails to persuade why Hillary is better. Then you start spewing stuff that has been debunked months ago, which makes you a tool. (very dumb and obvious one at that)

What you posted has all been debunked and most of them what causes Hillary\‘s collapsing public support. Most of what you push was the reason Hillary lost big blogs. (I guess you still hasn\‘t learned what went wrong with Hillary campaign)  But good job discrediting puma as bunch of republican tools or bottom of barrel kooks.

But how you bring up green bothers me a bit. That\‘s McCain big talking point right now.

You so didn’t answer my question (although it wasn’t really directed at you)-if BO watched as Hillary got raped in front of him—not participating, just watching, but not doing anything to stop it. Is he then still not culpable-after all, he didn’t participate, did he?

Your grammar’s a bit better in your last post. Keep up the good work….

how is that racist? she is talking of different demographics—hardworking Americans (which could include anyone) and white americans.

Sure she was.

If you’re fooling anybody, db, it’s only yourself.

In any case, db, I don’t think HRC actually set out to sound like a white supremacist talking about hardworking white people (as opposed to lazy, shiftless blacks).  She was probably looking for a way to describe her demographic without sounding like she was saying “white people won’t vote for a black man” and stumbled all over herself.  Unfortunately, she stumbled right into some pretty loaded language.

as for “i got nothin” i’m sure i would also have nothing if BO watched as Hillary got raped in front of him—not participating, just watching, but not doing anything to stop it. Is he then still not culpable-after all, he didn’t participate, did he?

You were asked to provide links to Obama or any high-ranking campaign personnel saying anything sexist or misogynist about Hillary.  Instead of supplying any, you talked about how you have no evidence, but he was surely behind it in some way.  Now, you say that he did nothing to stop it.  It’s called moving the goalposts, and it just shows how: you got nothin’.

Second, for your ridiculously hyperbolic example to be accurate, Obama would be fighting for his own life at the same time, including fending off some attacks from Hillary.  Can someone in that situation be expected to attempt to rescue someone else?

By the way…weren’t gone long, were you?  Guess you didn’t have that much studying to do?

Anybody taking bets db keeps coming back until this thread is long-since over and puts in one last post so s/he can say they got the last word?

Anybody?  Bets?

“Second, for your ridiculously hyperbolic example to be accurate, Obama would be fighting for his own life at the same time, including fending off some attacks from Hillary.  Can someone in that situation be expected to attempt to rescue someone else?”

He would fighting for his own life? hardly…the media and the Dems were so ridiculously easy on that guy. It was like a cakewalk for him. All he had to do was give some stupid speech on race (which was so hackneyed that it barely went beyond black vs white) and everyone was goo goo ga ga over him, forgetting all about his wacko connections.

“By the way…weren’t gone long, were you?  Guess you didn’t have that much studying to do?”

—You wouldn’t know—unless you’re a medical student too—or a law student. But I’m glad it bothers you enough that I come back here that you keep writing about it! It’s good to know I’m adding some spice to your life. Maybe I’ll keep coming back just so you have something to bet on, to bring happiness and cheer to your existence.

And with that, I actually do have to leave. 

Just to make sure db doesn’t think their eloquence is the reason I’ve fallen silent.

It’s sad that Obama’s daughters have a father like him. Maybe someday while they are being verbally raped by a bunch of asswipes he will just stand by and watch. So sad.

Hahaha…..thanks for leaving (I say this genuinely). Finally I have a reason to get myself off of this and stop procrastinating. And I hope you know, my silence will have had nothing to do with you either.

Sounds like db is really lonely….

Lonely? What gives you that idea? The fact that I use this site to procrastinate? Or is it the fact that I’m a feminist? Do you think all feminists are lonely or something?

FYI, this—-“But I’m glad it bothers you enough that I come back here that you keep writing about it! It’s good to know I’m adding some spice to your life. Maybe I’ll keep coming back just so you have something to bet on, to bring happiness and cheer to your existence.”—-was sarcastic….

Sounds like db doesn’t know she’s trying to reason with this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/6rkl9f

Oops.  I guess I was writing at the same time you were, db.  I guess I should give you a proper goodbye.  Wouldn’t want you to think I was ignoring you.

But I’m glad it bothers you enough that I come back here that you keep writing about it! It’s good to know I’m adding some spice to your life. Maybe I’ll keep coming back just so you have something to bet on, to bring happiness and cheer to your existence.

You don’t bother me, db.  You don’t matter enough to bother me.  I’ve wasted about an hour and a half of my life talking to you that could have been better spent, and I suppose that bothers me a bit, but that’s about it.  Your rhetorical tactics are clumsy and transparent, your assertions totally unsupported.  You’ve convinced no one and proven nothing.  As a debating opponent you’re just taking up space, but you’re going to “win” this thread by staying in until everybody else leaves and you get the last word.

Usually, that would bother me.  But this time, I don’t care.  Because…well, see above about convincing no one and proving nothing.  You don’t matter.  I - and everyone else - will soon move on to conversations that are actually still alive, and leave you to play in your empty sandbox.  Have fun.

oh my god. are you serious? wow, just wow.

seraph—if you’re the one with the obama tattoo on your pasty waist then….same goes to you. not only are you fugly but you’re a bot to boot.

NOBAMA ‘08

Seraph, how about “when she’s feeling down, her claws come out”. Oh right, that’s not sexist. I can totally hear him saying that about Edwards. Edwards would also make a good Annie Oakley or a monster that would do anything to get elected.

Yeah, no sexism there.

meingoldcountry-i think what it comes down to for seraph and others like him is that they know there was sexism there—despite their acting like they don’t know—but deep down they just think that’s ok, it’s not offensive (of course, since it’s not directed at a man, their male candidate). a sexist man won’t be bothered or up in arms about how some woman is verbally raped with sexism. seraph is sexist.

Well, this post received almost 600 comments. The one on Obama getting a special rate from his lender got 27, three of those were mine trying to explain that it wasn’t a case of “shopping around” for a good rate.

Keep that wool over your eyes. You’re going to need it.

I had a feeling you were a guy, db, but now I know for sure.  I mean, “verbally raped?”  Do you really think that’s how feminists speak?

Hmm, I’m thinking I should take it as a compliment that I seem androgynous on the internet…no but really I’m a female. A straight, but very feminist, non-white (not disclosing my ethnicity here) woman. I didn’t know there was a certain way that feminists speak…but then again, I spent my undergrad taking biology and pre-med classes, so I’m not “trained” in the finer arts of women’s studies course language or how feminists ought to speak.

You don’t seem androgynous, you seem like a nerdy college dude who gets his rocks off going to lefty sites to impersonate “feminazis” in order to be provocative and antagonistic.

on some of the political call in shows or segments I’ve heard lately, there have also been more than a few callers, usually women, identifying themselves as a “lifelong Democrat, voting for McCain this year” before going on to list some GOP talking points.  I think this schtick will be used throughout this campaign, an extension beyond the primaries of Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” and I hope Clinton and Clinton supporters who are going on to support the Democratic nominee, Senator Obama (as any sensible Democrat or feminist would, I think), will help to expose this kind of deception.

Rather than a lengthy post on why women are in the current situation they are as far as how the Democratic Party has failed them and why we have failed each other, way beyond this one presidential election, this quote from someone who worked her ass off to create our ability to have the vote:

No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex.

I’m glad to see you’re still going on with all the stereotyping you seem to love to do of any feminist who is not you (and who does not know how to properly “talk like a feminist”—first time I’ve heard of that). Really, enabling the stereotyping of feminists by saying that I seem like a “feminazi” impersonator is not very feminist at all. I would have imagined as a self-proclaimed serious feminist you’d be beyond that. But surprise surprise….you don’t surprise me.

BO’s strategy was to defame and smear HRC, using smears typically employed to discredit women.  He was in league with the main stream media, and was able to coast of the tide of hatred, when he wasn’t actively spreading it.  His campaign and his supporters took every opportunity to depict her as a “lying, opportunistic, two-faced, castrating, big-mouthed bitch”.  Which is an actual quote referring to HRC from this political cartoon :  http://blogs.laweekly.com/fish/2008/04/the_tradition.php

HRC’s positions and actions that were the supposed reasons for these characterizations were in many cases no different from Obama’s, which highlights the hypocrisy of his smears and misogyny.

“Barack Obama’s campaign, on the defensive for the past week, yesterday launched its most pointed assault yet on the character of rival Hillary Clinton, accusing her of routinely misleading voters for political gain.

Obama’s campaign, in a memo and conference call with reporters, asserted that Clinton had been untruthful about her foreign policy resume, her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, her involvement in the 1993 passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and her views on the renegade primaries in Michigan and Florida.”

“The American people are simply not going to elect someone they think is not being honest and trustworthy,” said Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, pointing to what he called a “character gap” revealed in a new Gallup poll, which found that 53 percent of voters do not perceive Clinton as “honest and trustworthy,” while more than 60 percent believe both Obama and McCain are.

“She would be a deeply flawed nominee,” Plouffe said.

March 22, 2008

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/22/obama_attacks_clintons_veracity/

“Campaigning in Wyoming ahead of contest there, in which Mr Obama was hoping to do well, he reacted with anger and irritation to suggestions by Mrs Clinton that he would pull troops out of Iraq more slowly than he has promised.

Mr Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe also piled pressure on Mrs Clinton to release hers and her husband’s tax returns, alleging that there are questions to answer about the Clintons’ newfound wealth.

Branding Mrs Clinton “one of the most secretive politicians in America today”, he added: “If Sen Clinton is not being open and honest about her tax returns you have to wonder if she’ll be open and honest with the American people as president.”

09/03/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581153/Barack-Obama-attacks-Hillary-Clinton-over-Iraq.html

“At an event in Des Moines, Obama (D-Ill.) characterized Clinton’s approach to addressing the issues as “You should hedge, dodge and spin, but at all costs, don’t answer.”

The statements marked the latest escalation of campaign rhetoric from a candidate who earlier this year declined to criticize his chief opponent for the nomination. Increasingly, he is taking on not just Clinton’s policy views but also her character, and is casting the Democratic front-runner as someone who makes decisions based on polls and calculation, rather than on her convictions.

This argument and Obama’s tone in taking on Clinton are a clear shift. Last month, his aides said he would focus on policy differences with Clinton.

But in recent weeks, Obama has poked fun at Clinton, an Illinois native, for not answering a question in a debate about whether she would cheer for the New York Yankees or the Chicago Cubs if they both made the World Series, and he has criticized “triangulation and poll-driven politics,” a reference to Bill Clinton’s attempts to capture the center during his administration. In his attacks against Hillary Clinton, Obama only this month has begun regularly uttering the words “Senator Clinton,” rather than criticizing “the Washington establishment” or unnamed others.
ad_icon

“There’s a whole range of issues she has been less than forthcoming, and she’s made a judgment that this is a good political strategy,” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political adviser, said yesterday.

October 28, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/27/AR2007102701332.html

“Obama attacks Hillary Clinton as “in her element” when politics becomes negative

Reflecting on the ABC debate, Barack Obama said: “Senator Clinton looked in her element, she was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there, that’s her right to twist the knife a little bit, that’s why she’s only airing negative attacks in Pennsylvania, like in most places.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4

:Barack Obama has accused his rival Hillary Clinton of perpetuating the “politics of fear” practiced by President George W Bush, charging her with raising the “spectre of a terrorist attack” to scare voters into backing her.

Mr Obama stated that “when Senator Clinton uses the spectre of a terrorist attack with a new prime minister during a campaign, I think that is part and parcel with what we’ve seen the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1575778/Barack-Obama-attacks-Clinton’s-‘fear-politics’.html

“Democrat Barack Obama lashed out Sunday at rival Hillary Clinton, mocking her sudden vocal support for gun rights and saying he understands the concerns of working class people.

“She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her,” Obama told an audience at a union hall here.
Obama turned the tables on Clinton — noting that she accepted campaign contributions from drug and insurance company lobbyists and mocking, among other things, her sudden fealty to the rights of gun owners.

“She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley,” Obama said, invoking the famed female sharpshooter immortalized in the musical Annie Get Your Gun.

“I just have to remind people of the track record,” Obama said. “This is the same person who took money from financial folks on Wall Street and then voted for bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for folks right here in Pennsylvania to get a fair shake. Who do you think is out of touch?

“This is the same person who spent a decade with her husband campaigning for NAFTA, and now goes around saying she’s opposed to NAFTA,” Obama said, referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement that is widely unpopular in blue collar communities.”

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-flacampaignwatch0414sbapr14,0,6183759.story

Hmmm, who is it that is flip flopping on NAFTA, on gun control, who is triangulating, who wants to take away our rights and uses the threat of terrorism to justify it?  Can I call Obama a lying bitch?

Oh, hey - look what the lying bitch is up to lately:

Taking a page from President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican.

Obama contended he is merely stating long-held positions — surprising to some, he said, after a primary campaign in which he was “tagged as being on the left.”

In recent days, with the Democratic nomination in hand and the general election battle with Republican John McCain ahead, Obama has been sounding centrist themes with comments on guns, government surveillance and capital punishment. He’s even quoted Ronald Reagan.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqqqF79sCN4HSE6uVrPQVBQpYZVwD91L9C4G0

Who was routinely misleading voters for political gain?

“I get tagged as being on the left and, when I simply describe what has been my position consistently, then suddenly people act surprised,” he said. “But there hasn’t been substantial shifts there.”

I’m not surprised.

Yeah, Jen—

I can totally picture db sitting in his dorm room, jerking off to all of his posts.  “Oh yeah, I made obamabots mad! I did well on my PSATs! Oh yeah! I’ve convinced them I’m a real feminist!”

This is, after all, probably the only social interaction db gets.

PUMA here.  Several hundred dollars to Hillary.  Once she was out, my next contribution went to McCain, as will my money and my vote.

Obama is not fit to be President.  DNC really screwed up by pushing him through. 

People calling us names, or saying that we don’t exist, don’t merit any more attention.  Just check the polls in November.

oh yeah. McCain is fit as president. (He can’t even remember what he said a month ago.)

Here’s a great article on the progressive blogosphere’s gleeful misogyny and betrayal of HRC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/hillaryclinton.uselections2008

  The candidates are so close, they say, really you should vote for Obama, he’s not that different from HRC.  If they are so close, why did the blogger boys turn on someone who is on their side?

andy-you seem to be talking about your pimply-faced punk self. if youre another stud like seraph is, i’m sure you’re getting just as much social interaction as he is….lol

but hey, as long as you have fauxfeminist-masochists like jen in this country—-i’m sure any misogynist candidate you and your sexist frat boy friends choose will have a shot at becoming our great country’s president. what a shame.

bunny—you know all that stuff you posted about Obama is actually making me want to vote against him now (for McCain). He is such a lying punk, much like his frat boy followers. I can’t wait till November. Let the punks go down in flames.

“I had a feeling you were a guy, db, but now I know for sure.  I mean, “verbally raped?” Do you really think that’s how feminists speak?” Jen on 07/02 at 10:31 PM

Well Jen, I don’t know how your definition of a feminist would speak, but then any feminist worth their effing salt would have backed the superior female candidate in the first place.

Further more, I’ve felt exactly that way. As Clinton supporters, we get abused for for months and then are told to “get over it” or threatened with dire consequences or told we have no where to go. Yeah, rape, battered wife syndrome, all that good stuff. And you Obama supporters think we’ll ever vote for him? 

Amazing.

Actually, db, I have extremely clear skin, graduated HS at 15, was a national merit scholar twice, and now I’m in med school, law school, and getting a phd in biomedical engineering. 

And for such a progressive feminist who haaaates sexism so much, you clearly have no problem with homophobic slurs like “punk.” 

Nice try.  You haven’t fooled anyone, bro. 

And meingoldcountry, you’re really making a principled stand.  There’s obviously nothing more important in the world right now than casting a protest vote against the supporters of the other democratic candidate.  And drawing analogies between a typical primary season and rape/spousal abuse is so offensively hyperbolic and petty that it really undermines people who have actually been raped/abused.

“And for such a progressive feminist who haaaates sexism so much, you clearly have no problem with homophobic slurs like “punk.””

—I didn’t know it was a homophobic slur…and I don’t think most people use punk as a homophobic slur.  According to Wikipedia, “some individuals within the punk subculture hold right-wing views (such as the Conservative Punk website), libertarian values, neo-Nazi views (Nazi punk), or are apolitical.” This is the context with which I was using the word punk, just so you know. FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_subculture

“Nice try.  You haven’t fooled anyone, bro. “

Wow, bro! You really have a problem with imagining a woman who is smarter than you, don’t you? Is that where all this “is she a guy” hypothesizing comes from? You’re a sexist pig if you can’t even believe that yes, I AM a WOMAN who graduated from HS at age 16, was a national merit scholar, am now in med school, and going to graduate in about 1 3/4 years. And no, you insecure sexist PUNK, i didn’t just kick ass on my PSAT, I kicked ass on my SAT, MCAT, and USMLE Step 1, and I am waaaay smarter than you are. Deal with it. YOu don’t have to deal with it by falsely imagining that I’m a guy.

“And meingoldcountry, you’re really making a principled stand.  There’s obviously nothing more important in the world right now than casting a protest vote against the supporters of the other democratic candidate.  And drawing analogies between a typical primary season and rape/spousal abuse is so offensively hyperbolic and petty that it really undermines people who have actually been raped/abused. “

Oh, I’m sure you care about people who were raped/abused. That’s why you didn’t bother supporting the only democrat FEMINIST candidate there was this year! And if your lazy ass needs to be spoonfed another link about how HRC wanted to improve the lives of American women, I can spoonfeed that to you, you little child.

db just revealed his true colors by using “democrat” as an adjective.  Go away, GOP troll.

I think you’re a guy because the persona you created is totally inconsistent.  And because it pisses you off. 

I know plenty of women who are smarter than me…. Women who aren’t so insecure that they need to broadcast their test scores in order to prove it.  But the only way I can assess your intelligence is by reading your posts here, which prove that you’re a socially awkward dumb-ass. 

And I’ve actually voted for Hillary Clinton many more times than you have.  She’s my Senator, and I’ve always been a fan.  Throughout the primary season I supported both/either candidates, and ultimately voted for Clinton, though it could have gone either way.  If Obama had lost, I’d have had just as little sympathy for an Obama-Puma.  I like Clinton, and am thrilled to have her continue to represent me.  I just can’t stand schmucks like you.

And, fyi, from merriam-webster’s definition of punk: slang : a young man used as a homosexual partner especially in a prison.  When used pejoritively, which is what you did, that’s the subtext.  Any real progressive/feminist would know that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punk

Thanks for responding db, I read all those links.  I agree there’s been sexism in the press and some supporters, but you failed to send any ACTUAL SEXIST STATEMENTS made by Obama and/or his campaign leaders. 

And bunny, since you also seemed to be responding to me none of the quotes you posted/linked to have anything to do with sexism or misogyny.  Obama accused Clinton of using terror to scare voters into voting for her.  Was he right?  Maybe, maybe not, but either way, how is this statement sexist? 

Plouffe said Clinton would be a “deeply flawed nominee” and criticized her & Bill for not releasing their tax returns.  Again, how is this sexist or misogynist?  He didn’t say she was “deeply flawed” because she was a woman.

Do db and bunny know the meaning of the words “sexism” and “misogyny”?  Please do some more research and dig up some ACTUAL SEXIST STATEMENTS from Obama and/or his campaign officials.   

Obama is not beyond reproach, he’s a politician.  But I’ve yet to see any concrete evidence that he’s a misogynist. 

And to baltochef, how about some PROOF or EVIDENCE that the DNC stole the election for Obama?  This is more conspiracy theory nutjob talk. 

On an unrelated note, I think this is my favorite quote on this entire thread:

grlpatriot wrote:
“PUMA is not a feminist movement”

Well, duh squared!

These folks don’t scare me, let them vote for McCain!  I don’t waste time pandering to conspiracy theorists, but they are entertaining.

“I think you’re a guy because the persona you created is totally inconsistent.  And because it pisses you off.”

I actually don’t take it as an insult to be called a guy. So no, it doesn’t piss me off to be called a guy, it pisses me of that you would think I am one for no good reason—-and no, a persona being “inconsistent” doesn’t point to my being a guy—-you couldn’t even point to ONE SINGLE instance in which I gave any indication that I am a guy. You can’t even prove that you aren’t sexist, because based on the limited personal information I gave you, you thought I was a guy because it was….“inconsistent”....whatever that means. Maybe inconsistent with what you think women are. And that is sexist.

Look, I can tell when I’m dealing with a sexist guy, because I have dealt with them before. And I have also dealt with non-sexist guys, most notably my non-sexist boyfriend. You do seem sexist, because you can’t even point to one thing I said that made you think I am a guy, probably because you know that would reveal your sexist colors.

“I know plenty of women who are smarter than me…. Women who aren’t so insecure that they need to broadcast their test scores in order to prove it.  But the only way I can assess your intelligence is by reading your posts here, which prove that you’re a socially awkward dumb-ass. ”

Oh wow, I didn’t know I said my test scores! Or could it be that you’re engaging in a bit of hyperbole. And you are the one who is insecure, because you felt the need to bring up my academic background over and over again in this thread when I was talking about things like feminism and sexism and the primaries. And you brought them up in order to disparage me—I don’t let attacks like that go unanswered, esp. if I can tell you’re the socially awkward dumbass.

Don’t try to hide your sexism behind “I voted for Hillary more times than you did—-I am so non-sexist.” well duh you voted for her, she is your friggin senator. If you didn’t live in NY maybe then you wouldn’t vote for her in the primaries.

This is lame. Don’t bother writing to me anymore…your posts aren’t worth reading. Try to get some self-awareness and do some introspection before you try to convince people that you are a non-sexist progressive. It’s just not working as it is.

max singer—“Please do some more research and dig up some ACTUAL SEXIST STATEMENTS from Obama and/or his campaign officials. “

what about his statements saying that HRC didn’t do anything as a first lady that other first ladies haven’t done in the past (which is not true)? What about his suggestions that she got to her position of senator due to being bill’s wife, not based on any achievements of her own? Now, I would dig up/research where and when he said those things, but then you would probably say, “But he is a politician, he’s is flawed, plus she said racist things, so it all cancels out, plus that wasn’t harmful, though it might have been sexist (but only to you radical feminists) etc etc…” so I don’t think this research is worth the effort, plus you are perfectly capable of finding them yourself IF you are really interested in finding out if BO made sexist statements.

Thanks for your reply though.

To meingoldcountry and bunny if you are reading this—I have to wonder, is watching a bad thing happening and not stopping it though not participating either, like the Holocaust for example (and yes this is an extreme example, but the US did ignore it for a while/did nothing to stop it despite knowing about it) make one not culpable for its occurrence and continuation? This is a moral issue for me. I doubt BO for his character-I know he is intelligent and I don’t think he is as informed as HRC was, and I don’t think he is very progressive, but what worries me most is his lack of character—whether it is moral-i.e. not standing up for HRC against sexism or even engaging in some sexist remarks himself, or lack of political courage-i.e. pandering to the right, flip-flopping on issues like FISA, voting present instead of taking an actual stand on votes in the state senate, what he said with AIPAC, and getting the AA community’s vote while not showing any specific plans on how to help that community—it all points to someone who will say and do anything and everything to get in office but doesn’t seem like he has any courage/moral fiber/character. McCain, whatever his views, at least shows some political courage-the ability to go against his party for what he believes in.

All you people on the fence about who to vote for this year, consider Obama’s track record. He’s not just “not perfect” he’s got some pretty deep character issues that should be considered while deciding who to vote for.

You’ll keep reading, because you thrive on this.  You came here to pick a fight, so I’m giving it to you.  If it’s lame, don’t reply.  I dare you.

And my non-sexist boyfriend isn’t sexist either.

I don’t actually give a fuck if you’re a guy or not.  I just saw that it was pushing your buttons.  Don’t try to deny it; you responded with a five paragraph essay.

You could have played nice, and probably would have gotten more respect here if you had.  But your neanderthal definition of feminism (which can be distilled down to “if anyone thinks db is an asshole - after db made every effort to be an asshole- they’re sexist”) doesn’t have much substance.

wow. is this the “if i am gay that qualifies me as a true progressive person with no hint of sexism in my mind”? Please elaborate to me when gay people suddenly became the bastions of non-sexism in this world. Id love to know, because I know that sexism is VERY prevalent in the gay community. Don’t pose as a non-sexist person to me. Your being gay proves nothing, just like Jen’s being gay proves nothing. If you don’t even realize this, then you are truly the dumbass between the two of us.

I wouldn’t have responded but you and Jen’s insinuations that you two are sooooooooo progressive and non-sexist/feminist simply because you are gay, makes me laugh. Get off your high horse, being gay doesn’t prove shit. And I don’t need respect from you!

but i will say, i AM sorry that I called you a punk, but I am honest when I say that I didn’t know that that was what it meant. I definitely won’t be using it in the future unless I am talking to a confirmed neo-Nazi heterosexual. sorry.

db:
I don’t care if you’re a woman,man or hermaphrodite.  You got any sexist “quotes” from Obama yet?

My non-sexist girlfriend isn’t sexist either.

Neither are my frat brothers.

Or my daughter.

Or my two moms.

I wouldn’t have responded, but your suggestion that one should vote for McCain “whatever his views” because it “at least shows some political courage-the ability to go against his party for what he believes in” proves, once again, that you’re just a concern troll.  It hasn’t worked.  You’ve convinced nobody to vote for McCain, you’ve convinced nobody that you’re actually the true feminist/progressive here, and I’m probably the only person still reading this.  And that’s only because I like messing with you.  (Primarily because you’re a woman and I’m sexist).

m singer- I’m not spoon-feeding children today, you can look them up yourself if you’re truly such an interested progressive! (there is this quote from the Ring 2…“I’m not your fucking mommy” which I think applies here)

My non-sexist girlfriend isn’t sexist either.

Neither are my frat brothers.

Or my daughter.

Or my two moms.

..........Yeah. And your two dads. And your four step-dads. And your five gay sons. I mean seriously, you seem like a college freshman like the one you described in his dorm room jacking off to his posts and impersonating someone he’s not.

And yes, I AM a feminist and it’s retards like you that make me think that at least McCain is politically courageous, something BO and his followers are not. Prior to talking to you and your friends, I wanted to vote Green but bunny’s posts remind me of all the reasons for my deep lack of trust of Obama as a person, and your and your friends’ posts remind me of what sexist, blind followers BO has. Whatever a “concern troll” is….if that’s what it means, then yeah, I’m concerned—I’m concerned that BO would make a shitty president.

I’ll quote wikipedia for you, since it’s a source you appreciate:

“A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user’s sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.”

For instance, coming to a feminist/progressive blog, pretending to be a feminist/progressive, and then having your opinion gradually evolve (like, from Green to McCain). 

My point above is that you don’t know who I am, and just like you, I can invent many characteristics about myself in order to attempt to generate some credibility.

“m singer- I’m not spoon-feeding children today, you can look them up yourself if you’re truly such an interested progressive! (there is this quote from the Ring 2…“I’m not your fucking mommy” which I think applies here)”
Nice dodge, db.  Nice way to admit “I don’t really have any evidence of my claims, so I’ll accuse someone who has an actual argument of being lazy.”

You see, I’ve been googling “obama sexist misogynist” ever since I got this link e-mailed months ago, titled ‘Obama surfs a wave of misogyny’:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/203015/414

That post had no evidence of “misogyny” from Obama, so I looked around the net for any other examples of misogyny from his campaign.  And found nothing. 

I’m not asking you to be my mother, just asking you to back up your arguments, so far you haven’t done that.  Can you?

this is the internet and i realize that i can invent characteristics about myself to “generate credibility.” I don’t know how I “generated credibility” though with my characteristics. I said my academic background in response to marcotte’s post where she demeaned the mental and intellectual soundness of feminists who aren’t voting for BO, to make sure she knew that she is wrong and that she shouldn’t be stereotyping feminists in broad strokes in such a disparaging way just because they aren’t voting the way she is. Also because I find it very offensive that as a self-described feminist she would say that feminists not voting for BO are “hysterical bitches with no common sense who subsist on outrage, can’t act in their own self-interest because of their feminine-addled brains, and can safely be ignored.” Maybe if she reads the book “women and madness” by phyllis chesler she will realize that women who disagree with the men around them have been labeled “hysterical” and mentally ill and forcibly placed into mental institutions by their husbands and other relatives for over a century when they were perfectly mentally healthy. Someone who reinforces that stereotyping, stigmatizing, and abuse of women who disagree with a majority of people is acting like a tool of the patriarchy and is doing something anti-feminist while possibly not realizing it.

As for who I am, I would in a heartbeat prove who I am to you, if I trusted you. But I don’t know you, and I can’t give out personal info to someone who could potentially screw me over (med students can get in trouble for issues such as “internet professionalism” and there is this Big Brother like atmosphere here over that…one student got expelled for what he wrote on a blog). So no way am I going to give out personal info to you, there is too much at stake for me to do that.

And no, I’m not a concern troll as per your wiki definition, and yes, my views ARE truly evolving with this conversation. Though you are definitely more civil in your last post.

OK, since you’re being more civil, I’ll be more civil too. 

What Amanda typed was that the McCain campaign is using the Pumas to reinforce the stereotypes you and Amanda described.  While I’m sure some disaffected Clinton voters may exist, and while some democrats may take issue with Obama, the McCain campaign is also originating and exploiting the “clintonites for McCain” meta-narrative. 

If you’re being honest about who you are, fine.  I won’t argue that anymore.  But you should also recognize that given that the McCain campaign has actually sent working orders to internet posters to pose as commenters on pro-Obama sites, your comments here are suspect.

I haven’t been trying to engage in arguments about whether or not Obama is sexist, because I don’t believe there is a chance you will or ever would have voted for Obama.  It appears to me that by coming here you have a specific, kind of nefarious agenda, and that’s why I’m giving you a hard time.

I’m copying and pasting what she typed below for reference. FYI, PUMAs are not just former Dems voting for McCain, PUMAs also include former Dems voting Green and former Dems not voting at all.

“If you can convince people that there are PUMAs, then you accomplish two giant goals for the McCain campaign…..
.....2) Reinforcing the narrative about how feminists are just hysterical bitches with no common sense who subsist on outrage, can’t act in their own self-interest because of their feminine-addled brains, and can safely be ignored.
....My suspicions grew.  Commenters claiming to be PUMAs don’t seem to have much history of commenting on other things at blogs.  The supposed “outraged feminists” in pieces like the one Jesse covered this morning don’t exist—-if there’s so much outrage, how come the journalists chronicling it can’t get one real world feminist to sign her name onto the outrage?  There’s a lot of speculation, but no quotes.”

Am I wrong to think that AMarcotte is saying that if I am a PUMA (former Dem who is considering either not voting or voting Green, although I realize that PUMAs include those voting for McCain) I am reinforcing the narrative that I am a hysterical bitch, i.e. the only way I am not reinforcing that is if I get in line and vote for Obama? If she supports this view, which her words clearly indicate, then she is the one reinforcing the sexist narrative. I AM a feminist outraged at how HRC was pummeled in the primaries, so what the hell is marcotte talking about here? DId she bother talking to any feminists who aren’t voting for Obama before she wrote this post (i understand she’s not a wonderful journalist, mostly blogging, but still….)? Oh, and maybe since not all of us comment on blogs all the time, that means we don’t exist? As if commenting on blogs is the only proof of our existence, isn’t it.

I don’t have a nefarious agenda, and do you really have proof that McCain is hiring people to post on pro-Obama sites or is that a conspiracy theory? I assure you, I don’t have the patience or interest to get involved in “nefarious agendas” like that. This test I have to study for is nefarious enough, along with the nefarious-ness of the public acceptability of sexism that has been revealed through the primaries. You couldn’t be more wrong about my having “a specific, kind of nefarious agenda” but I can understand your suspicion since this IS a very pro-Obama site.

And m singer, i gave you some examples that you could google. I can’t do your work for you, sorry.

you know what, you two (andy and ms) don’t have to reply to my posts. I think I won’t be checking back on this thread because I just realized that Marcotte is simply a dime-a-dozen blogger, polemicist, and armchair-feminist. She’s not even a real journalist, so why would anyone expect real facts from her blog? I don’t need to care if she’s not, as meingoldcountry put it, a feminist worth her effing salt, (or a journalist in any sense of the word) and now, I definitely don’t. Best wishes to you both.

From the horses mouth:  http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx

Perhaps you’re familiar.  And that’s what’s available publicly.  It makes comments like yours kind of fishy.

And while the last thing anyone needs here is a treatise on feminism, as you know, it is a constantly evolving, amorphous discursive movement, with various sub-groups and internal conflicts, and anyone can self-identify.  Can Amanda speak for all feminists? Of course not.  neither can geraldine Ferraro, Camille Paglia, or you.  When Amanda generalizes about feminism is she essentializing an inherently diverse movement?  Maybe, though generalizing is often a necessary rhetorical evil.  But I think her statement about Pumas is a compelling one, especially when faced with evidence that the founder of the Pumas is full of shit.  Regardless of who the Pumas are voting for, they are tools of McCain’s brand of patriarchy, which for most people here is about 100000 times worse than Obama’s brand of patriarchy.

what kind of feminist uses sexist smears against women who don’t agree with her?

My mother, sisters and I are PUMAs. Regular readers of the Confluence came up with the concept, which started sort of half-joking. We are not all voting for McCain, though some are, but we are not voting for the one they forced on us. There were a number of PUMA protesters in Unity, NH the other day, and there are videos on YouTube. I couldn’t go because I live 3,000 miles away. I use my real name so nobody will say I am Karl Rove or something. Google away.

I voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, except in 1980 when I voted for John Anderson.  (I thought, until now, Carter v. Reagan was the worst choice I’d ever see.)  In 2000, in our open primary, I voted for John McCain to try to save the country from the stupid Texan.  I will not vote for Obama.  But being an old guy, I’ve already been cast out of the Obama-Dean-Drazile “New Democratic Coalition.” I suppose that makes me another “Republican Operative”  in the eyes of you kids in the Wii generation.

I am one of those people who is proHillary and won’t vote for Obama if she isn’t the VP and the same with my husband, my daughter and my inlaws. Why, because she is the best candidate for VP and if he doesn’t have the leadership to recognize that then we will stay home or vote for McCain. I don’t dislike Obama. In four more years he probably would be ready. And if he picks another woman he is toast, no to Ricardson - who is a coward - who waited until MI announced it would not have a revote to back Obama because he couldn’t ride her coat tails and whose own state went for HRC, No to Dodd and Biden who couldn’t get a gelegate between, HRC is better than Webb, Nunn, Bayh, or Chet Edwards, Gephart is a lobbyist for Turkey? HRC is the best choice.
I think the reason a lot of Hillary supporters aren’t warming up to Obama is because so many of his supporters are bullies. He needs to show leadership and address the blogs and say that these insults are not in the spirit of his campaign. I see a lot of talk and very little substance. So if you think PUMAs are a rightwing conspiracy theory the laughs on you.

Hi Jessie,

I guess you’re right.  The only thing that really matters when voting for a president is who he or she chooses as a running mate.  The vice president, whose primary responsibilities are waiting for the president to die and very rarely casting a tiebreaking vote in the senate (unless its Cheney, whose primary responsibility is destroying the country), is the number one issue in this campaign.  I could care less about allegedly important issues like the environment, trade, foreign policy, education, women’s issues, science, or the economy; my number one concern is whether Hillary Clinton may or may not feel vindicated.  And my step-cousin twice removed feels the same way.