that shit smelled like rat-fucking a mile away.

PUMAs ROAR!

now back to myspace.

Republican Operatives Arranging Ratfucking?

I absolutely agree that it’s ill-considered.  But imagine if Clinton had prevailed and there was a millions-strong base of Obama supporters irked by the result and acting out online.  (_Lots_ of Obama supporters vowed never to support Clinton.) I think they would be covered with much greater sympathy in the blogosphere than the PUMA folks have been.  I’m surprised by the intensity of the backlash against the backlash.

Haven’t you heard?

I’m told that women - particularly post-menopausal women - are sick of being threatened by Roe, which has been gutted anyway due to spineless Democrats; that Obama’s just as likely to invade Iran and has no way to get us out of Iraq; and that anyone who says otherwise is an Obamabot cultist. So clearly the only rational thing to do is vote for McKinney. Or Nader.

I absolutely agree that it’s ill-considered.  But imagine if Clinton had prevailed and there was a millions-strong base of Obama supporters irked by the result and acting out online.

And that public acting-out would probably also be largely a function of Republican rat-fucking.  I’m sure they had the websites all ready to go, just in case.

It’s the one thing they know how to do—screw with elections.  They have no clue how to govern once they get the power, but they know how to fuck with the election to get themselves into office.

I dunno.  We’ve all seen a lot of blogospheric Dem-on-Dem outrage.  The DailyKos “pie fight” was sincere. 

Republicans are masterful at the ratfuck but sometimes we do quite well at mimicking the results all on our own.  Ratsturbation?

Ratsturbation is the new word of the day :D

All you folks obsessed with rat-fucking should consider the possibility that this election will just be another sham like 2000 and 2004. The voting machines will get fucked by rats, the Florida rats are bound to screw something up, the voter registration crap will hit the fan, god knows what ... the American elections might be rigged. (Gasp).

Just so you are not all blaming the PUMAs if this goes to hell in a hat basket the way that it did in 2000, when everyone blamed the fuck ass Naderites.

Instead of blaming the PUMA’s and calling them foolish and selfish, you might want to consider blaming Obama, the DNC, and clueless supporters, like yourself.  You can blame the whole ratfucking lot of you for never failing to miss the point.  How many times does it have to be pointed out that PUMAs are not all women?  That we have real problems with the issues?  How many ways can you find to dismiss our concerns?  And still you sit there with a stupid bewildered expression, wondering why we won’t come around.  If we are going to be ignored and dismissed, belittled and misunderstood, why is it so hard to understand that we’d rather not vote the people in who are doing it?  That we won’t back them and support them?  I’m not voting for McCain, he is obviously not on my side.  But then, he doesn’t claim to be.  Obama, in some mysterious way, is supposed to be backing my ideals.  But he is not.  Why on earth would a vote for this supreme ratfuckery?  And why would I follow along with the clueless dolts such as yourself who are blind to it?

Bunny, you’ve already been exposed as just another ratfucker.  I’d suggest you leave before you end up getting annihilated.

And no, it’s not a threat, it’s a warning.  I’m just going to sit back and watch.

Damian, bite me

And, btw, Damian, I know you think you are scary, and you think you are powerful when you threaten me.  That’s the way bullies are.  You can’t answer with any valid arguments, so you tell me to shut up and leave, or I will be annihilated.  This is the same major ratfuck all you pieces of shit have been pulling on all the blogs.  well, you can go fuck yourself, Damien.  You can’t bully people into voting for your candidate, it doesn’t work like that.

Aww, did I piss twollie off?  Go vote for your warmonger.

I’m not voting, I’m just going to watch.  And if by some miracle Obama does get in, it will be fun watching him punk out on everything that simpletons like you thought you were promised.

hmm.  I just found another great new site, seems like there is a new one every day.  Here’s some late night reading for you from it, Damian

“I’m pissed at the classism of this campaign. It’s not even that the Democratic Party is taking the working class for granted any more - no, according to Donna Brazile, we don’t want the working class any more. Sending out Harry & Louise flyers, ignoring the rural poor, giving up on true universal health care. A party that turns its back on the sick and the poor is a party that does not deserve power. We’ve been saying that about Republicans for years. We have met that enemy, and it is now ourselves.

I’m pissed at the use and abuse of religion in this campaign. I care not at all as to what deity, if any, a politician prays. As a person with a Catholic background, of specific ethnicity, I am aware that I may respond to someone who speaks in my sub-cultural patterns and language - and yet, the only politician in my memory who has matched that experience was Mayor Giuliani, with whom I share little except a pronounced aversion to long-term monogamy. I hold the First Amendment dear, and believe there is no religious requirement for any role in public life. What I do find infuriating is religious exceptionalism. When within one month, the entire country knew about his religious conversion. And his pastor. And when he did and didn’t go to church. We were treated to photos of Obama standing in front of a cross of gold. His regard for his own faith is high. And yet, when looking for an excuse to lose the PA primary, he lumped in religion with deadly weapons, xenophobia, and bitterness - and these were all bad things, because they were things done by poor people. Respect for the freedom to worship (or not) is available only to those who support him.”

http://pocochina.livejournal.com/80203.html

Obama, in some mysterious way, is supposed to be backing my ideals. 
bunny on 07/03 at 01:02 AM “

what is your ideal?  (stop blustering, spinning or going all over.)
just list it.

“ No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex.” (Susan B. Anthony)

I’m pissed at the blatant misogyny of coverage of the campaign. I’m pissed at people who should know better - who acknowledge other people’s sexism, who can cast an accusing finger at the entire horrible media, but can then turn around, utterly free of irony, and utter, “but he just inspires me,” or some other sufficiently vague, comforting reason to not check one’s own sexism. You know, it feels a bit ridiculous now, with my highly partisan perspective on the campaign, but I did a lot of soul searching to make sure that I wasn’t just voting based on whiteness or femaleness, and I did it relatively frequently - though less so as the campaign went on and only one candidate acted as if she actually wanted my votes. The bottom line was that I trusted her views on government (we have it, so let’s use it, and do so in a way that helps as many people as possible, and then next time let’s do better) more than his (hope!(TM) change!(C)); that her health care plan was better; that while his reproductive rights record was more than satisfactory, hers showed nuance and leadership. And those, in the bottom line, are the reasons I went for Senator Clinton. I am deeply fortunate to have access to the pro-Obama voices of POC who forced me to take that look into myself.

I’m pissed at what Senator Obama has done to my party. I’m pissed that DNC officials couldn’t even be bothered to publicly acknowledge sexism; I am even angrier that they chose to buy into it.  Make no mistake, the DNC chose their candidate.  They had no commitment to the process of the primary.  They could have stormed every talking head show in the country talking up all the good things about this long and exciting primary.  People are interested in politics.  A record number of Democrats voted; far more than the Republicans - they were making money, they were raking in votes, they were building a new Democratic system.  Instead, they chose to mourn and moan about how every minute that passes, McCain voters have another hate-gasm because That Bitch was Killing the Party and Why Won’t She Just Quit.  To expect a woman who’s winning millions upon millions of votes to step aside so that Teh Menz can get to their serious business is blatantly sexist, and every time one of them got in front of a camera to moan WWTSBQ, they sanctioned it, and used it to their own advantage.  When the life of one of our own was threatened three times in one week, the DNC said nothing.  This is inexcusable.”

here’s some more ideals for you, Big Bird

“I’m pissed at Barack Obama for his misogyny. I can understand - though I do not condone - why he did not apologize for his own fuckups on that score. But he had not one, not two, but three clear opportunities to distance himself from the hate speech of others, and he did not. He could have taken a moment - just a fraction of a breath - in his many condemnations of Rev. Wright - whom he could no more disown than the black community, until of course he did just that - to say “by the way, the personal attacks on my opponent are not worthy of my church, my party, or my country.” He did not. He could have said the same when distancing himself from Father Phlegler. He did not. He was careful to condemn so-called divisive rhetoric which did nothing but tell the truth about the drug war, allegedly un-American comments which would (and, of course, still will, for there is no escaping the Republican Attack Machine) make him look bad, and he could not be bothered to condemn hate speech against a colleague. He could have said the same when he issued his departure from his church and he did not.

Were an observer from Mars to judge the man by his public statements in these moments of crisis, that Martian observer would be quite rational to conclude that his need to see Senator Clinton abused means more to him than his God.  I expect that from Republicans. I expected better from Democrats. I no longer can.”

hang on, there’s a few more things to be pissed off about:

And that isn’t even touching the dirt of his shoulder, tea parties, likeable enough, periodically feeling down…you get the idea.  Beyond even his upfront sexist statements, he has relied on the implacable and unjustified hatred of Senator Clinton and her charming husband, in both hard right and right leaning media outlets. When Drudge - transparently and baselessly - claimed that a Clinton staffer had spread an email photo of Senator Obama on a visit to sub-Saharan Africa - the Obama camp and its surrogates in the media on and offline jumped to repeat the rumor.  Then he went on TV and magnanimously said he believed her, and then he went to Mississippi and lied, and said she’d done it.  Everyone, after all, would believe it about that woman. That ruthless, ambitious, political woman.

I’m pissed at the netroots. For a brief, shining moment - like, 2 1/2 years or so - Left Blogistan was a place of high media skepticism, of proud partisanship, of committed progressivism. Now, anything goes, as long as it’s about That Bitch. HRC and her filthy husband are slobbering racists - everyone knows she sent out that photo, I saw it on Drudge - as long as we never have to question the source. And by the by, Atrios and LGM, your Solemn Pronouncements on race and ethnicity lose a lot of credibility when you snidely revel in the disenfranchisement of an island full of brown people, because they didn’t vote for your candidate.

wow, I’m still angry.  I wonder why?  Oh yeah - maybe this is it

“I’m pissed at the next generation of political pundits. Whenever confronted with uncontrovertible evidence of sexism, they reacted uniformly - to grudgingly admit that sexism exists, and then jump to BUT ITS NOT THE ONLY REASON.  People who follow politics to any extent are well aware that there are many factors in political decision making, and most of them are subconscious.

I’m pissed at feminists who decided their feminism didn’t extend to That Bitch. I want to be clear, I’m not talking about feminists who, in good faith, decided that they wanted to support Obama, Edwards, Dodd, or whoever else. I am the first to state openly that reasonable people could have come to different decisions on that. I’m talking about feminists who, usually incisive and merciless in their rejection of expected gender roles, uncritically accept the Nasty Harpy narrative about Senator Clinton. I expect feminists to be able to step back and say, “well, knowing what I know about how I, and everyone around me, and in particular the chattering heads paid to tell me what to think about this campaign, have been conditioned in my expectations of female behavior, I am going to be critical of how I process this election.” For a lot of feminists (Edwards and Obama supporters as much as Clinton supporters) that happened; for a lot of them, it didn’t. I saw one feminist blogger say of Clinton’s suspension speech only, “Best speech of her political career.” The best speech of a thirty five year career of one of the most brilliant women in modern public life just so happens to be her concession?  We’d be unbelievably suspicious of such an assessment about any other woman’s career - but it was Hillary, so it’s okay.  It’s nauseating from a babbling jowl show - it is heartbreaking from a feminist.  And the wheel turns, and a woman’s career is at its apex when she submits to a man.

Sorry about all the quotes, but I, and probably many, many people agree with this completely.  Since you don’t listen and don’t comprehend, what is the point of taking the time to restate it all?  If you want to know why PUMAs exist - here it is.  Figure it out.

“They have drawn race as black and white. This is patently ridiculous. I’m not linking to anyone who makes the claim that - essentially - white women are the only ones who liked HRC, we should just stop whining and suck it up, POC are thrilled about Obama and we are just entitled bitches. It is true that Black Americans overwhelmingly - though far from universally - preferred Obama. But this erases the huge numbers of brown women - Asian-American, Hispanic-American, in huge numbers, at least where the pollsters bothered - and men as well, who knew that they are not invisible to her. Those claims are out there, though. I’m thrilled for African-Americans who see themselves in Senator Obama. But I do not ever condone the erasure of anyone because they are inconvenient to a political agenda. I have been proud to call these women ally and sometimes, presumptively, friend. I’ve talked before about my frustration with this erasure, but with Clinton supporters - neither all white nor all male - so offended by this campaign they have decided the Democratic Party is no longer their home, the erasure has reached fever pitch. I do not begrudge Obama supporters their excitement. I do not understand the need to begrudge us our grief.

I think that non-feminist Obama supporters, and particularly male non-feminist Obama supporters, have this idea that we are just irrationally angry, our feelings are hurt and we should get over it or we’re just silly, don’t we know how bad McCain is, maybe they’ll just tell us one more time. The choice not to support Obama is a long-run rational choice.  Right now, there is a party that hates women all the time, and a party that used to humor us, but hates us when it is convenient.  It is our job to never, ever let it be convenient again, or there will be no one in government advocating for our rights.

“We are not your sweeties, who just need candy and flowers to come around.

We are not your bitches, that is not a leash in your hand. Our bodily integrity is not a choke chain you may use to threaten us. If you think it is, you are no better than the Republicans.  And yes, the “But! But! But!” Roe stick is just that - a threat. Politically involved women know exactly where we stand on Roe, and we know the Democrats haven’t been all that bothered to even look like they’re trying to protect it, these last seven years. We know what an anti-choice Supreme Court looks like, because we read Gonzales v. Carhart and our hearts broke in fear for ourselves and our sisters and nieces and daughters.

When you tell us that we’d better get in line and vote for Obama, OR ELSE ROE, you are holding our own bodies hostage against us, as if they were yours to take. You are actively, proudly, literally threatening us with our lives. Is that the change we should believe in?

In my own words then:  I think Obama is not to be trusted.  Not to be trusted on important issues and ideals that I care about.  The war in Iraq, the coming war in Iran, reproductive rights, gun control, the death penalty, FISA, NAFTA.  I could go on and list all the specific reasons I don’t trust him.  But I doubt you are listening or that you even care.  You will say, “Oh, but McCain is worse”.  I think they are about the same, and I won’t vote for either of them.  Except that, while the results of electing either of them will be about the same on the issues, what is worse about Obama is that he has led people to believe that he is different, that he cares, that he is change and hope.  He sucks.

bunny,

ranting idiot is a dime a dozen. Some even write a manifesto to blow up the world. But they are hardly anybody worth listening.

on top of that pocochina is small member of riverdoughter/confluence group.

she start doing entry in february march (all dubious rant)
http://hillary1000.wordpress.com/author/pocochina/page/3/

this is her first political entry. (substance and style)
http://pocochina.livejournal.com/2008/01/17/

...so one can safely dismiss this person as a bit screwy. a dime a dozen around the net. She is not even that entertaining compared to the more flamboyant one at newsgroup.

Oh, sure, sexism wasn’t the only drawback of the Clinton campaign.  But the Blogger Boyz/MSM’s desperate cast for reasons other than sexism to explain Clinton’s eventual coming up slightly short for the nomination reads to me, at least a little, like an excuse to duck any responsibility on the part of themselves or Barack Obama.  Because if Obama won, even a little, based on these unfair biases, then he didn’t win the great coup over the Dragon Lady they have been screaming for these many months.

http://pocochina.livejournal.com/81578.html

well. that’s a real level headed candidate analysis. That’s PUMA? lol

Bunny, all your bluster only proves you’re looking for something to be pissed off about, or just plain MAKING SHIT UP.  You’re a McCain troll and that’s all you’ll ever be.  Get out.

Who the fuck are these people? Just wondering, because they are like, gone off the deep end. I suppose they could be just garden variety internet cranks except their issue is...well I don’t even know what their issue is, it seems to be some combination of “Obama isn’t all that liberal” (duh neither was clinton) and sexism caused Clinton to lose (probably a factor). Is this supposed to be news? What, exactly, would make these people happy?

12 posts in a 29-comment thread? Exciting.

And it missed the point, which is that while there are people who are pissed off with Obama and the DNC, there are also a big ol’ heap of people who are Republican operatives posing as Clinton supporters, with the intention of stirring up trouble.

bunny, you keep using the word “ratfucking”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Look, we tried to tell the DNC. We tried to tell the SD’s. When that didn’t work we went to the media, anyone that might listen.

We’ve been yelling for months and have been largely ignored, by our own party and by the Republicans. After all, they wanted to make sure Obama was the nominee so they gave us no help trying to get Clinton a fair deal.

Now we’re really pissed and there are a shit load of us. And calling us “dumb” is more effective than any Republican troll claiming Barry is the antichrist could be, so I wouldn’t worry about rat-fucking. Nah, all the Republicans had to do was sit back and watch the Obama machine rend the Democratic party.

And this is what’s left. You Clinton haters that stuck us with a crap candidate and we PUMA’s. Some of us will vote McCain, some will write in or vote a third party, some will stay home.

None of us will vote for Obama.

Gosh there sure are a lot of new people here just for this post I wonder why because it is quite the coincidence.

“It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren’t even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/hillaryclinton.uselections2008

“ Supporting Bush, actively by voting for him or passively by voting for Nader, was somewhat understandable, because he didn’t actually let the voters know that he was gunning for abortion rights or to invade Iraq.  I mean, you should have guessed that, but it’s not immoral to be naive.”

Huh? Supporting Bush is not understandable. Bush had no business running president and there’s no excuse for not realizing that. But I guess some of you wouldn’t know because you’re supporting a candidate just as ill prepared for office.

Bush was imposed on us with the supreme test of presidential material: the one “you’d like to have a beer with”. Now we have a new poll telling us American’s would rather have barbecue with Obama.

I don’t know, sounds like a racist poll to me but it’s the same old bull shit.

Shorter bunny: [cut]+[paste]

still waiting for evidence of McCain’s “moderation” trollcountry.

We’ve been yelling for months and have been largely ignored, by our own party and by the Republicans

Maybe because yelling nonsense in over-the-top voices that only howler monkeys can hear probably isn’t helping your own cause.

OK, I’m tired. Sorry for the typos in my last comment. I’m sure you’ll find both on your own, three if you count the double negative.

Wow. Either somebody was up in the middle of the night talking to themselves OR the RNC pays ratfuckers by the keystroke.

“Look, we tried to tell the DNC. We tried to tell the SD’s. When that didn’t work we went to the media, anyone that might listen.
...
None of us will vote for Obama.
meingoldcountry on 07/03 at 05:25 AM”

You could yell another thousand years and still noone would listen.  You are a crank left over from failed campaign strategy. You don’t understand what you are talking about. You can’t sort out your demand rationally except pushing talking points, desperately holding together liners that doesn’t connect to each other. I mean read your posts....

But McCain cracks jokes about bombing Iran

OK, I’ll grant you that Obama doesn’t joke about it, but he does insist that “all options are on the table.” “All options” being fairly well-established diplomatic code for “anything up to and including a nuclear first strike that sterilizes the entire country so completely that not even the cockroaches survive”.

But of course he wouldn’t actually do that, oh no - he just has to say it in order to get elected, whereupon he will immediately repudiate all bellicosity and usher in a brave new era of peace, rainbows and unicorns. Sure.

If you’re going to make the willingness to bomb Iran your litmus test, there is <i>no-one<K/i> you can vote for.

That we have real problems with the issues?  How many ways can you find to dismiss our concerns?

Ummm...since Barack and Hillary’s positions were so damn close, I’d really like to know what your concerns were with Barack’s take vs. Hillary’s.  Which particular issue did Hillary have a stand that was so very different from Barack’s?

Were you pro-AUMF?  That would explain a decision to vote McCain.

The DNC are a bunch of wonks in a DC bubble.  No one likes them.  No one feels like they listen to real people and real issues.  They simply try to push all candidates “to the middle” which is Republican-Lite and doomed to failure.  It’s part of the reason the country is tilted so far to the right--if no one is pushing left, there can’t be balance.

I can see Republican women crossing over to vote for Hillary and then returning to the fold, but I can’t see any woman who cares about civil rights crossing over to vote for McCain.  That’s b/c I know women aren’t hysterical creatures given to acting on emotion over reason.

Hillary knew the rules going in.  She thought she would sweep Super Tuesday b/c she lived in a NY bubble and listened to the DNC.  She’s the one who kept moving the goalposts--first it’s popular vote, then it’s superdelegates.  She fought a good fight, but she lost.  The system was not gamed against her, since it had been gamed for her by general DNC bubble-headed consensus.

Seriously, bunny-troll, you’re whining about “issues”, but you don’t name them.  J. Sidney’s positions are much more different from Barack’s than Hillary’s were, so it would really be more convincing if you could name an issue that mattered to you (not “experience” or “3am phone call” nonsense) that Hillary supported that Barack doesn’t and J. Sidney does. 

And if you don’t like “Roe” being held over you like a threat, maybe you ought to let the Republicans know that they should stop threatening it.

“Look, we tried to tell the DNC. We tried to tell the SD’s. When that didn’t work we went to the media, anyone that might listen.”

Yeah, but come on.  Threatening to hold your breath until you get what you want or die didn’t work when you were three.  How do you expect it to work now?…

A record number of Democrats voted;

Yeah, they did.  And more of them voted for Obama.  Surprised the hell out of the DNC and Hillary.

She ran a bad campaign.  She expected the Super Tuesday win and blew all her money there.  When it didn’t happen, she was struggling for money and votes and had no plan B.  Mark Penn hurt her and cost her $$$$$$.

Don’t you remember all the “inevitable candidate” talk before Super Tuesday?  It wasn’t Barack, it was Hillary and the main talk was about whether she could beat Romney or Giuliani.  It was aggravating to those of us who didn’t want Hillary to be the candidate, but we didn’t go whining about voting Huckabee if we couldn’t have Kucinich.

quoth microruminant: “I’m not voting, I’m just going to watch.  And if by some miracle Obama does get in, it will be fun watching him punk out on everything that simpletons like you thought you were promised. “

Here’s some of your beloved Libertarian prose for ya bunny:

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose freewill.

A Hillary Clinton Retrospective: Evolution of Inevitability
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8YJm2IraTg

Gee, countess, I didn’t hear Obama ever say “special neglected MEN” in his speeches, not like Hillary played into the victimization complexes of poor little WHITE working class men.

I didn’t see any of his senior minions going around talking about “shiny little girls” or “inadequate women” either.

Just because you weren’t pandered to doesn’t mean you were discriminated against.  I wish all these relics of the “everybody needs special petting and pandering to have self esteem” movement losers would just recite the Stuart Smalley in their mirrors and get over it.

(_Lots_ of Obama supporters vowed never to support Clinton.)

Lots of Democrats vowed to emigrate to Canada in both 2000 and 2004, and there’s never been a run for the border yet. 

I have family members who vowed to leave Louisiana for Mississippi if David Duke wasn’t elected governor back in ‘93.  15 years later, they’re still firmly west of the Mississippi.

People say a lot of things when they’re speaking hypothetically.  “If so and so wins...” “If X happens...”

The system was not gamed against her, since it had been gamed for her by general DNC bubble-headed consensus.

Just what I was going to say, but not as well and not as early. Before January, HRC was the presumptive nominee and it was her race to lose. NO ONE gave any one else a chance: Edwards might score a few rounds, but Obama’s run was seen as a warm up for the 2012 race. And then Obama did a great job of inspiring people and he garnered more votes. That gave him the nomination despite the DNC and HRCs “inevitability.”

Was there sexism? Hell yes. And while I don’t think it was her desire for this role, I thank HRC for being the lightning rod that exposed all of it to the popular consciousness. It is still way easier in this country to be casually sexist than it is for people to be casually racist and we saw that in the Democratic Primaries.

What I can’t understand is how all of the sexism made evident by the MSM, by the punditocracy, and even by “Leftblogtopia” is to be laid at Obama’s feet. Did he profit by it? No question. Did he create it? No. I blame the patriarchy. But since he profited by sexism, does that disqualify him from running? Then every male ever to hold office is disqualified.

Hmmm. There might be something to that....

Flip, Republicans floated the rumor that drug-addled, multi-racial packs of kids were going to riot in the streets if Obama didn’t win, and that was equally offensive to the sexist stereotype of the PUMA that some women unfortunately wish to live up to.

Would I have taken that as personally?  No, probably not.  But because the PUMAs, fake or not, are dragging the good name of feminism through the mud, I do take this personally.

Bunny, the fact that we’ve never seen you before and will probably never see you again is more than a little suspicious, don’t you think?  Doesn’t do a thing to prove that you’re not a ratfucker, but goes a long way to implying that you are.

Can you tell the difference between PUMAs and spammers? Neither can Blogger.

And. clicking on some of the links to PUMA sites, I couldn’t tell the difference between those sites and any McCain site I’ve ever been to.

But because the PUMAs, fake or not, are dragging the good name of feminism through the mud, I do take this personally.

McCain is NOT a Maverick

My thoughts on all this (as if anyone cares):

I suspect that some of these women are real, not paid Republicans, and I don’t wish to abuse any of you in any way.

However, I really do not understand the constant meme that our pointing out that McCain has pledged to outlaw abortion is US threatening YOU with loss of bodily autonomy if you don’t vote for Obama. How can we threaten you? WE have no real power over abortion rights, therefore we cannot threaten. Our earnestness, which seems aggressive to you, just points to our deep concern. McCain wants to end abortion, period. Obama does not. And the same can be said for thousands of other important issues, for example, gay marriage.

Do you really think that, given a conservative majority in this country, a roll-over Congress, and a swiftly tilting-right Supreme Court that it’s a good idea to actively or passively let a super-conservative gay-hating woman-hating man like McCain to become president? As a cherry on the top? If Congress couldn’t stand up to Bush, the most hated in the country, how will they stand up to McCain? They need a strong Democrat leader, and Obama is the one we’re stuck with.

I don’t think Obama is perfect. I won’t argue whether he allowed sexist statements to help his campaign, nor whether the Clintons allowed racist statements to hurt theres. At this point, I don’t think we have the luxury to debate those very real, very important issues. Not because they aren’t important, but because we’re looking down the barrel of a gun on these issues:

1. A man who wants to send our children to die in Iran and a man who has promised to attempt a diplomatic solution before firing off the big guns.

2. A man who wants to ban abortion in all cases, versus a man who openly says that his responsibility to his daughters demands that women come first.

3. A man who wants ‘marriage’ to be defined by the bible, and a man who recognizes that this is a free country and responsible adults who love each other shouldn’t be defined by an old book.

4. A man who will stack the SC with women-hating, gay-hating men, and a man who will throne HRC as a justice who can influence our country for years to come and far more powerfully than any persident.

Protest votes are your right. But you must know that any 3rd party vote will help McCain. That’s the nature of 3rd party votes. And that’s your right. But aren’t these issues important enough to think twice? I hope so.

nor whether the Clintons allowed racist statements to hurt theres.

Should be: nor whether the Clintons allowed racist statements to help theirs.

I can has edit?

Some are real.  It doesn’t work if some aren’t.  That’s the point of Rick’s post---real people who would probably come to their senses are being told by Republican ratfuckers that the moral thing to do is go with their worst, most selfish, most asinine instincts.

Vir: That’s awesome.  Makes me wonder if the RNC is outsourcing PUMA duty overseas.  Certainly would go a long way to explaining the half literate emails popping up in my inbox.  There’s not as many of them, but they strongly resemble the angry emails I get after Bill O’Reilly lambasts me on his show, at least in terms of grammar and syntax.

Amanda, I don’t know how familiar you are with life on the east coast, but I have noticed this sort of tail-chasing behavior too many times to discount the existance of such people based on their illogical behavior.

I usually tote it up to extreme self-isolation within small cities or neighborhoods, and to pervasive lead poisoning and poor schools during the middle of the century.

In any case, this sort of behavior is truly myopic, utterly irrational and makes high school clique bullcrap look tame. Yet it is all too common amongst those who have lived their entire lives within a 5 square mile area. It puts loyalty and pandering and MY TEAM MY TEAM WHOO MY TEAM (and we will have to kill you if you say othewise) above reality, maturity and self-interest.  I’ve seen it rear its head in a parent who refused to accept that her daughter got caught in a lie and went after those who caught her (they were raising a nice drug dealer’s kid for sure), I have seen it when somebody dared point out that a person wasn’t doing their job and outline exactly what was needed when they weren’t “the authority”, I have seen whispering rumor mill campaigns against “unpopular” parents who questioned the status quo that were unmitigated bullshit, I have seen it in local elections, and I have seen it now that the transit system is set to expand on an existing train line on existing rights of way (oh noes! big city dangerous people will invade !!!!).

Lead poisoning, bizarre self-isolation, bad schools = reduced opportunity and cognitive function.  These make a region unattractive and that further reduces opportunity.  Clinton pandered to these people. 

The way protopumas reacted to that pandering and launched “with THE TEAM WHOO THE TEAM or against US!” campaigns for HRC turned me off to her and on to Obama.  I’m not suprised that they are throwing tantrums and spewing crap straight out of meaningless and mean high school clique wars and denying the larger reality.  They don’t have any fucking clue what democracy looks like in the first place, and no interest in finding out.  They are damaged people who have never had to - and never been allowed to - grow up and think for themselves.  If they think demanding more pandering makes them independent and adult, they can just go fuck themselves because they have been soooo had.

Another thing:
I asked three questions on the last PUMA post and none of the Pumas answered me.

1. What issues does Obama have a stand on that is so different from Clinton’s that it would make you refuse to vote for him? FISA? she voted the same way. Iran? She was more likely to go for bombing Iran than he is. Remember how she made fun of his soft stance? Iraq? She’s a war hawk. Women’s issues? I’ll grant you her stance was probably stronger but if you go to his website, he has some strong stands. And that quote taken out of context about a woman and her minister on abortion, I’m disregarding because it was taken out of context. He was talking about her right to make the decision whether she was consulting with her minister, her husband, or her family, or herself.

2. If Edwards were the nominee instead of Obama, would you be making charges of him being a “lightweight,” inexperienced charismatic so and so? Because Edwards actually had less time in elected office than Obama. Or does skin color play a role in how you judge one’s lightweightedness, hmmm? Abraham Lincoln had less experience than Obama so I personally don’t think dismissing his lack of experience is a good argument. Especially when one looks at Cheney.

3. If Hillary Clinton were to tell you tomorrow that you are betraying her causes by either voting for McCain or sitting out the election, how would you respond to her? Because she’s pretty much said that, just not in that blunt of language.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  the only way you get power as a political block is to VOTE.  If the left votes for Obama in large numbers, we then have a pressure point that we can use to get at least some of the agenda items we want passed.

That’s the huge, unacknowledged issue that a lot of people avoid discussing:  after 1968, a lot of people on the left dropped out of the Democratic Party, and the party had to make up the numbers out of centrists and people on the right.  Having leftists drop out of the political system allowed Republicans to pull the country further and further to the right, because there was no one resisting at the voting booth.

Political parties don’t come running back to groups that don’t vote for them and beg them to come back.  They write them off and look around for other voting blocs.  Sitting around waiting for your apology from the DNC means you’re going to have a very, very long wait.

What kills me is that all these tantrum-throwing primadonnas neglect the simple fact that their candidate’s buddies - like Icky - were the ones that wrote the very rules that the rules committee - also stacked with her partisans - made Michegan and Florida adhere to.

I guess the possibility that they would count against HRC never entered their aged minds ...

Sorry - Michigan.  I can haz spel chk?

“They are damaged people who have never had to - and never been allowed to - grow up and think for themselves.
Ms Kate on 07/03 at 10:51 AM”

Well it is not a complete communication breakdown. I tried to post and find social structure form, there is some responsiveness. Tho’ admitedly I can’t stand talking like what is required for them to respond for longer than few minutes.

I think once the intellectual driver is taken out. The rest of the group will soon fall apart since it has no internal coherency and a flawed self criticism.

The most effective means still seems to break the narrow and insular preference of basic facts. (what has happened, statistics, date, explanation of events, etc) Then seperating the crazy, the underinformed from outright republican operatives.

the PUMAs, fake or not, are dragging the good name of feminism through the mud

I guess I’d make a distinction between feminists for McCain—very few of whom I can envision seriously existing—and women against Obama—many of whom I can envision seriously existing.  But it could be that in the mainstream media coverage those have been blurred.

And I still think that in the event of a Clinton victory, there would have been _massive_ pro-Obama, anti-Clinton venting, and calls for them to get over it or accusations that their feelings weren’t real would only have further inflamed the situation.  (Imagine how Jon Aravosis would react.) I take Opoponax’s comment about threats to move to Canada—yes, people say a lot of stuff when they get riled up politically; following through is a different matter.  So why not let PUMA roil for a while?  To mix animal metaphors, I don’t know if it’s a good idea to keep poking the PUMA hornet’s nest.

After all, they wanted to make sure Obama was the nominee so they gave us no help trying to get Clinton a fair deal.

This is one of my favorite bits of the PUMA mythology, that they were TERRIFIED of Hillary Clinton with her nationwide 48% disapproval ratings and years and years of scandals. That’s why the Republican attack machine ignored her while launching all its fury at Barack, because they wanted him to be the nominee so much.

I have no doubt that in an Alternate Universe there is right now an “Obama-supporting” PUMA-esque organization, outraged by Hillary Clinton, having won the majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday and racking up 11 wins in a row in February, “stole” the nomination from the clearly better candidate.  And Aravosis probably would be in such a group, because he is and always has been, a, a wanker, and b, a sexist.

That said, it’s a whole lot of fun to watch the trolling.  I haven’t had this much fun since Ron Paul’s Roving Band of Misfit Defenders stopped descending on any blog which mentioned his holy name.  It’s entertainment, pure and simple.

We’ve been yelling for months and have been largely ignored, by our own party and by the Republicans.

What, specifically, have you been yelling? You’re right--I haven’t heard it before, and I’m seriously interested and ready to listen.

After all, they wanted to make sure Obama was the nominee so they gave us no help trying to get Clinton a fair deal.

What specifically wasn’t “a fair deal”? I know about the horrible sexism in the media, but neither the Democratic Party nor Barack Obama have control of the media. (If you believe they did, do you think we would all know Obama’s bowling score or that he “dissed” the waitress in a diner by refusing a cup of coffee in favor of orange juice?) Obama had “opportunities to denounce the sexism”, sure, but McCain had the exact same opportunities--and the same amount of responsibility.

I think the clearest indicator of Obama’s level of respect for Clinton and her candidacy was when he fired a high-ranking staff member and long-time friend for calling Hillary a “monster” (in a private conversation that was overheard, no less).  When it was someone who worked for him, whom he took responsibility for, there was no stalling or waiting to see how it played in the media--she was gone well before the end of the day. No fanfare, no self-aggrandizing press conference: just “she’s gone”.

The system was not gamed against her, since it had been gamed for her by general DNC bubble-headed consensus.

Actually, you need to distinguish between the DNC and the DLC: the hard-core establishment, “run to the center”, “don’t piss off the GOP or they’ll say mean things about us” Democrats are the D-L-C (Democratic Leadership Council--maybe coalition, whatever). There has been a rift in the party between the DLC and the D-N-C (Democratic National Comittee) ever since Howard Dean took over the DNC in 2004. Much of the rift has to do with Dean’s strategy (fight in all 50 states, try to strengthen the party at all local levels, build for the long term, etc.) vs. the DLC strategy (only worry about swing states, play to the middle to target independents, concentrat on national elections only).

(My 42 cents as an outside observer who followed the campaign but didn’t actually support either candidate are over at my place: http://www.thechaff.com. They were too long and off topic to include here. )

I have no doubt that in an Alternate Universe there is right now an “Obama-supporting” PUMA-esque organization, outraged by Hillary Clinton, having won the majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday and racking up 11 wins in a row in February, “stole” the nomination from the clearly better candidate.  And Aravosis probably would be in such a group, because he is and always has been, a, a wanker, and b, a sexist.

Oh, I agree with you.  There are genuinely disgruntled Hillary supporters out there, no question, and the same would be true if Obama had not gotten the nomination.  And, as with the Hillary supporters, you would end up with a couple of strong Obama websites muttering to themselves and competing diaries at DailyKos throwing elbows at each other.

What I’m doubting is that there’s an entire grass-roots anti-Obama movement within the Democratic Party with dozens of websites that magically sprung up overnight.

Mnem,

Absolutely right, just as in Bizzaro World the “prObama” groups/sites etc would look identical, but would instead use right-wing talking points, memes, and smears at the Clintons instead of at Barack.  It’s pretty predictable.

I’d like to add that I’ve never seen any group of people, with the possible exception of gangsta rappers, refer to women as bitches as much as the likes of bunny (or whomever she’s quoting) when they’re putting words in the mouths of their opponents. Just an observation.

Amanda, I thought you should know pumas are accusing you of “harassing” Darragh Murphy.  They’re pretty funny in a sad way:

• regencyg, on July 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm Said:

By the way, hey, can any of you wonderful folks direct me to some links of events of intimidation or violence or vandalism from Obama folks towards Clinton folks? I think that needs to be compiled and disseminated to the media pronto.

• sm77, on July 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm Said:
Regency - PUMAPac’s Darraugh Murphy has been harassed by Fake Feminist Amnada Marcotte and of course Gary & Mawm’s videos from Unity.

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/ingrid-betancourt-could-swing-the-us-presidential-election/#comments

Of course, this didn’t stop the Washington Post from running a big ol’ feature story on the allegedly existent group last week (6/26 Post, link below):

Post writer Kevin Merida drinks the Kool-Aid

It’s too bad the Post doesn’t have someone, like an ombudsman or a media critic, who could review something like that for journalistic integrity. On the other hand, that would require the Post to have an ombudsman or a media critic who could recognize journalistic integrity if it bit them on the ass. Howard Kurtz or Deborah Howell could prove me wrong at any time… except, no, they can’t.

Bunny reminds me of a desert cottontail I once had as a pet.  Being a wild animal, Fuzzy was rather over-reactive.  When frightened, Fuzzy would tear around her cage, spitting, and spluttering, and crashing into things.

Rather like troll-Bunny.  (Except Fuzzy, was, well, fuzzy and cute and therefore much more sympathetic.)

Iran? She was more likely to go for bombing Iran than he is.

Wasn’t Hillary Clinton the candidate who used the word “obliterate” in reference to Iran?  Hardly, a progressive sort of thing to say.

As noted by others on this thread, Clinton and Obama’s stands on the issues are nearly the same.  Obama isn’t perfect, but neither is Clinton.  There is no such thing as a perfect candidate.  Even the best candidate will differ from you on some issue.  And at this point, whatever his flaws (his FISA stance really pisses me off), Obama is light-years, galaxies, universes, better than McSame.

(Well, I suppose there is a perfect candidate.  Look in the mirror, because that’s the only person who will agree with you 100-percent of the time.)

Anyway, while I understand why a Clinton supporter would initially be disappointed and even angry, the likes of Bunny--who now, months after Clinton’s exit from the race, is still having Chernobyl-style meltdowns--seems quite “unhinged.”

I know about the horrible sexism in the media, but neither the Democratic Party nor Barack Obama have control of the media.

If anything, it’s McCain who controls the media, given the free ride they are giving him and all his “gaffs.”

months after Clinton’s exit from the race

It feels longer than it’s actually been:  the last two primaries were on 6/3.

(FWIW, I thought I had invented ‘ratsturbation,’ but Googling it comes up with an earlier use by vastleft at Corrente.  Aw.)

If it’s not on urbandictionary it’s not coined

“Sorry about all the quotes, but I, and probably many, many people agree with this completely.  Since you don’t listen and don’t comprehend, what is the point of taking the time to restate it all?”

What is the point, Bunny? Because if you could articulate your ostensible political position in a cogent and original way, there would be credibility given to your claim that you’re not a Republican ratfucker.

But instead you cut-and-pasted the same quotes that many of your fellow McCain trolls have been using all over the internet to create the impression that there is a groundswell of former supporters of Hillary who for credible reasons have chosen to support the Republican candidate instead of the Democratic candidate.

You can’t articulate your sincere position, because you’re not a Democrat, and you never were. The language that a Democrat would use is missing from what you write. You are a wolf not in sheep’s clothing, but in a cheap, plastic Halloween sheep mask. Now fuck off back to the RNC, troll.

Wow, I see you Obama supporters still haven’t pulled your head out of his ass. Keep it up there nice and cozy and pretend it will all go away.

Oh, yeah then you won’t have to watch him reverse every position he campaigned on, which wasn’t much to be sure; the hope change thing took up a lot of time. As did the parade of unsavory sociopolitical associations that had to be denied, uh explained, uh thrown under the bus.

And while you’re up there, time to change your middle name to Hussein. The folks will love that. And don’t forget the cult logo that should be tattooed on a conspicuous portion of your body. That will separate you from the trekies people always accuse you of being.

Ah yes, I almost hope he wins. Four years to watch you learn the hard way. Unfortunately, the country can’t afford it.

I wonder at the people here who call others trolls, ratfuckers, etc.  I don’t like that on any blog as it indicates someone who wants to fight and chose sides rather than communicate.  It is nothing more than a way of calling that person less than human and not worth listening to.  It may be exhilarating, but it is also rather useless.

Do you really think these posters who disagree with you are all Repubs?  They really are not—they are real, long-lived Dems who are angry (not just disappointed) and they have some very valid complaints.  Not all of these complaints can just be dismissed because you think you picked the right guy.

Please try to get out and about more.  The Guardian, for example, had an interesting article a few days ago.  Even some of the things written by blogs you love to hate have interesting points-of-view and some very interesting articles on the history of our country and its politics.  If you can get passed the closed doors of your mind...it is possible after all that you are not 100% right in all your beliefs.

I have been trying hard to understand how some BO supporters can really believe that HRC is as evil as they think, judging by the hatred in their blogging.  It’s not easy, to be honest, but I have been trying. 

I do know one thing.  If you believe that Obama is who is he says he is, you would also have to admit that he would not appreciate the anger and disrespect that many show to one of the leaders of our party and her supporters.
.

Meingold, you’re a drooling halfwit, but at least you’re not pretending to be a Democrat.

I’m probably the only one who is really happy with the new Obama. I thought he was a little on the scary side of “CHANGE” during the primaries, but now he is settling into someone that I could really get behind. 
I always liked Clinton because she was fairly predictable in terms of what she stands for, but Obama was a bit more of an unknown.

I don’t think he has reversed many of the positions on which he campaigned. At least he has an articulate and intelligent position, instead of making stuff up as he goes along. McCain is clueless about the economy, and just seems very daft as a person, in general. He seems like one of those old fucking idiots who laughs at sexist and racist jokes, just because the people around him are laughing. I remember someone asked him during the primaries what he thought of Clinton having a shot in the bar, and the question left him speechless, but then he sort of chortled in a disgusting, sleazy way, as if the thought of a woman in a “man’s” place like the bar made him sick.

I honestly can’t imagine what women or men who support Clinton would see in McCain. I really can’t, no matter how hard I try to put myself in the place of people who hate Obama.

“Do you really think these posters who disagree with you are all Repubs?  They really are not—they are real, long-lived Dems who are angry (not just disappointed) and they have some very valid complaints.  Not all of these complaints can just be dismissed because you think you picked the right guy.”

First, Barack Obama wasn’t my guy. I voted for Edwards.

Second, when these folks write comments that are largely generic pot-stirring invective, and when pressed for detail, cut-and-paste from a set of stock PUMA-sounded paragraphs (and I’ve seen the same comments, word-for-word, from people claiming to be Hillary supporters now backing McCain, on several blogs), they’re not real Democrats. They’re Republican ratfuckers. The “very valid complaints” that you refer to (care to detail them?) usually involve the word “sweetie” and “misogyny” and vague charges that Obama was favored by the “MSM.”

Nearly all the invective is patently fake.

That which comes from real people has so strongly sacrificed self-interest for embitterment that dialog isn’t possible. Will Republican operatives seek to generalize the scorn that is rightfully directed at the unbalanced but legitimate PUMAs to try to influence Hillary voters from the primaries? Sure they will. That’s what the ratfucking is all about.

So the proper approach is to treat every PUMA as though he (or she, ha) were a Republican operative.

I don’t like that on any blog

I am sorry that it offends your delicate, aesthetic sensibilities.

“And while you’re up there, time to change your middle name to Hussein.
meingoldcountry on 07/03 at 08:31 PM”

*chuckle*

Hey. I know. let’s kill some arabs while at it too. (noo, hillary supporters are not racist.... whatever)

my conclusion:

1. it’s largely righwing operation.
2. the language and material are shrill and outrage written around feminism blog.
3. combine it with reactionaries, sophomoric rant, and skillful McCain campaign operators.

you got the basic brew.

It’s basically whatever posted in front of several key rightwing/puma blogs. It isn’t even connected to Hillary anymore (observe confluence starts pushing McCain campaign narrative. It’s quite amazing.)

Current message:

1. Hillary primary was robbed (find excuse, RBC, sexism, etc, etc)
2. spout anti democratic party message
3. reuse all Hillary attack talking point (race baiting, religion baiting, class baiting.)
4. suggest to sit out the election
5. or else vote green or McCain. (start slipping McCain talking point.)

I would say this is quite effective for some segment of voters. (online even)

Dick, no I’m not pretending to be a Democrat, I am one. Drooling halfwit, huh? Methinks someone has a new tattoo and my last post hit a nerve.

Bug, don’t read much huh? Haven’t you heard that the Obama Youth are all changing their middle names to Hussein? And all the tattoos the kids are getting?

No? Or is it just more convenient to call me a racist. You’re race baiting is another reason we think you bots are reprehensible.

Oh and your conclusions are delusional, sophomoric and inane. Just like your candidate.

Obama Supports Bombing Iran AND Pakistan

“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.

“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.

“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

“… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”

McCain supports bombing everybody (I seriously doubt he is even aware what he is saying)
Hillary supports whoever aipac wants to bomb. (obliterate Iran, those peace activist. This is before super tuesday, when she suddenly veer populist left.)

Obama: focus on taliban (Pakistan), out of Iraq.

I don’t like that on any blog

“I am sorry that it offends your delicate, aesthetic sensibilities. “

>> I was trying to say that I don’t like it when anyone does it, regardless of whose “side” they are on.  Not a matter of sensibilites so much as it’s just counter-productive.

“That which comes from real people has so strongly sacrificed self-interest for embitterment that dialog isn’t possible.”

Could you say that again for me because I am not sure I completely understand that sentence? (I am not being ironic or sarcastic or anything—this is an honest reqeust for a restatement so I can understand.)

Oh, the hell with it.  I was going to wade through all these posts and respond, but it’s such a waste of time.  Mostly there are insults and accusations that have no basis.  The bizarre allegation of lead poisoning and not living is a big city are pretty funny, Ms. Kate is obviously a wacko with issues that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

It seems that I can’t prove I’m not a republican plant, so believe that if you want.  Believe there was no sexism, believe that Obama and his campaign didn’t push the idea of HRC being a monster, a liar, untrustworthy and that his attacks on her character didn’t succeed because of the underlying sexism. 

I don’t trust Obama, even though some of the time he claims to have positions similar to HRC’s.  Some of the time he doesn’t, he contradicts himself alot.  Mainly it is the way he lets people believe what they want to, and all the while he is obviously setting up a way out.  Political expediency is his major flaw, HRC was way more honest and upfront about what she wanted to do. 

Even today he is sending out conflicting messages about Iran and troop withdrawal. He has been saying all along he would not take out the troops if there are Al Qaeda bases, and there are.  So right there is a way to weasel out of his position on withdrawal.  But now he’s pouring it on with statement about “refining” his stance, and taking into account ground conditions.  You can go ahead a paint a rosy picture about what you think he will do, I just don’t agree with your hope and change patter, and based on things he has said and done there really isn’t a reason to have faith in him.

And since I don’t have faith in him, and think he won’t hold true and accomplish all these fine things, then I won’t vote for him.  Let McCain handle the f’d up economy and war, let him take the blame for the coming disaster, and maybe the country will be ready for a real liberal and the DNC will stop pushing this sort of crap down our throats.  I won’t enable Obama.  But you can, and enjoy the results.

So, yeah.  Go ahead and believe in him, go ahead and believe what you want about me.  Clearly talking to you is a waste of time, and anything I post is just me venting some of the things that have been disturbing me for a long time.  I really doubt that I’m the only one feeling this way.  If my lack of previous posting and future avoidance of this site are proof that I’m a covert republican operative, rather than proof that it’s impossible to talk to people like you and that usually I know better than to frustrate myself, then you are all set to believe I’m on McCain’s payroll.  I’m not, but how would you know?  You don’t need to know, you already have all the answers.  Good luck with this attitude.

McCain crew is here.... Time for nice video clips showing what McCain is about.
(let’s face it, they will keep trying to flame up hillary vs. Obama. )

The LIES that BIND! Bush/McCain Iraq/Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynz02_UWyw

McCain : Revealing Weakness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qle1QF0wgX8

John McCain - The Real Straight Talk!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE2JTLigBzo

John McCain ‘Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ptjl3ZQwM

Buh-BYE! Give Karl a big smooch from me when you get back to the hive.

The genuine “puma” is likely to be older, well past reproductive age, a long-time activist, pissed at the misogynist coverage, suffering from activist burnout, and willing to take it out on the closest available target, Obama. I’d expect a month or so of steaming will cause reason to return to these people. There are also a few really radical feminists of the separatist variety (think Michigan Womyn’s Music Fest) who perhaps were not likely to vote for anyone. These overgrown idealists are rare.

I think that a lot of the “pumas” were never progressive, never activist, never committed Democrats, but are centrist to moderate right voters who just can’t vote for a black man.  If they didn’t do the “Hillary wuz robbed” bit, they’d be harping on B.O.’s not exactly devout Muslim father and stepfather.

But most of the “pumas” who are not known in real life to readers are likely to be trolls for McCain.

To McCain “Feminists.”

1. McCain has said he wants to see Roe vs Wade overturned.

2. The next president will get 2-3 Supreme Court nominations.

3. They WILL overturn Row vs Wade.

4. Your daughters go back to back room abortions thanks to “your pain.”

5. McCain has said he wants to stay in Iraq 100 years if needed.

6. The vast majority of you stood with Cindy Sheehan. You think maybe it’s a little schizophrenic of you to even consider voting for McCain?

7. McCain, in 1998 told this joke: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.” So please, shut up about the sexist, mean media when your new candidate not only made an extremely sexist joke, but one that was monumentally cruel to a teenager at the time. (Salon. 1998. Here’s the link)

8. I bet your gal Hillary really loved number 7.

9. You now watch Fox News and think O’Reilly is the only person who was fair to Hillary. ‘Nuff said.

10. Republican operatives are goading you on, and you’re too angry to listen or care, even when one can prove it to you. In fact, you’re falling for it hook, line and sinker, and the Republicans whom you now support are mocking you.

http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2008/06/to-mccain-feminists-theres-pain-and.html

What Hillary-hate? B.O. supporters I know have been pro-Obama and not anti-HRC, except over the Florida and Michigan debacle in which Obama stuck with the national party’s ruling and HRC disregarded it. Most people in the real Democratic world want “Anybody But Bush (and clone McCain)”. Both BO and HRC fulfilled that criterion.

The Daily McBush #6 - Overturning Roe v. Wade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXNSa_xCpzk

McCain—No Choice For Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2l5WYid2Bo

Ms. Kate is obviously a wacko with issues that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

No, I just know Demublicans well - they act like you: loyal to the personality and the machine, attack anyone who questions “the great leader”, ignorant of democracy and democratic process (think it means “vote for the person in office” or “vote the ticket because voters aren’t qualified to think"), entitled and special and firmly believe they should be pandered to in return for their blind loyalty, and xenophobic/geographically isolated.

That isn’t irrelevant - that is a PUMA in a nutshell.  Massachusetts doesn’t have many Republicans, just a lot of democrats who WOULD be republicans if they weren’t lock-step conformists.  Sounds like PUMA to me!

Hillary’s Choose Your Own Debtventure!

After 17 months of directing Operation Hillary, the would-be commander-in-chief is confronting some serious debt. $22.5 million of it. According to a report by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) released Friday, Clinton owes $10.3 million to everyone from printers in Iowa to caterers in Pennsylvania to Mark Penn’s consulting firm in D.C. She’s also down the $12.2 million she personally loaned her campaign.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/06/25/choose-your-own-debtventure.aspx

Inside Hillaryland’s fatal psychodrama.

And so the jockeying and layering and squabbling grinds on, even as Hillary’s chances of capturing the nomination grow ever more remote. From the outside, the struggle for control of a campaign that likely won’t be around much longer may appear absurd. In Ballston, however, the sense of looming loss seems only to feed the fury, as advisers grab for what may be their last chance to right the ship. Whether driven on by dedication, desperation, or delusion, some of Hillary’s not-so-happy warriors find themselves unable to give up the fight--not just against Barack Obama, but also against each other.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54d3af5a-abde-4874-9d98-2bc4b8e23185

Putsch in Hillaryland

Post-Iowa, even the most blindly devoted members of Team Hillary could see that a shake-up of the campaign was in order. The peculiarities of Iowa’s caucus system aside, broad structural and tonal problems needed to be addressed. So, as a devastated top leadership struggled to make sense of what had happened, the candidate went to work: Plans were made to bring in new blood; rumors circulated about who among the senior staff would be booted after New Hampshire. But then--surprise!--Granite State voters smiled on the Clinton clan once more, delivering Hillary a political resurrection even more stunning than Bill’s 1992 comeback. The troops were elated. The generals were relieved. The candidate was glowing and crowing about her found voice. It was a grand and glorious triumph. Except…

The campaign still needed shaking. The percolating trouble brought to the surface in Iowa could not be ignored. But how to accomplish this without damaging the campaign’s miraculous new momentum? Especially when much of the discord, say multiple insiders, flowed from decision-makers at the very top of the pyramid.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=75e41edb-784d-4f9a-ba6e-08cab93d09ae

Oh, I forgot ... THEY FEAR CHANGE with great dread, loathing, pessimism, and sleazy attacks in an attempt to prevent it.

The Clinton Cult of Personality - From a very early point in her candidacy, Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency was more about Hillary Clinton and less about the important issues that Democrats and most independents care about right now. The goal of this cult of personality was to convince voters that Hillary Clinton was indispensable (she isn’t, by the way).

The Clinton Exploitation of Racism - I don’t believe for a moment that the Clinton’s are racist. I do believe that they are hyper-competitive, and that they will seize any perceived advantage they think they can if they think it can help them win. The Clintons and their pollster/strategist Mark Penn identified a strain of latent racism in certain parts of the Democratic electorate and they moved to exploit this with subtle and not so subtle remarks meant as “dog-whistle” signals to certain parts of the electorate. They didn’t think that these maneuvers would be held against them. They could not have blundered worse. This blunder would alienate a large part of Clinton’s base forever while, at the same time, validating a kind of latent racism in other supporters that should never have been tolerated.

...

To call the PUMA movement muddle-headed is to understate the problem by several orders of magnitude. The PUMAs don’t really seem to know what they want. Here are a few of the things PUMAs have demanded or believe in (see how many contradictions you can find):

1. That Obama make Clinton his Vice President.
2. That Clinton refuse to serve as Obama’s Vice President.
3. That McCain make Clinton his Vice President.
4. That Obama’s supporters must pay off Clinton’s campaign debt.
5. That Obama is a sexist and so are his supporters.
6. That Obama’s supporters must pay off Clinton’s campaign debt.
7. That Obama should lose to McCain.
8. That Obama’s supporters must pay off Clinton’s campaign debt.
9. That PUMAs should vote for McCain and actively work to support McCain.
10. That Obama’s supporters must pay off Clinton’s campaign debt.
11. That Clinton should wreck the Democratic Party at the Denver Convention.
12. That Obama’s supporters must pay off Clinton’s campaign debt.
13. That it is okay for PUMAs to actively work to damage the Democratic Party.
14. That Obama’s supporters must pay off Clinton’s campaign debt.
15. That it is okay for PUMAs to insult Obama supporters in the vilest terms.
16. That Obama’s supporters must pay off Clinton’s campaign debt.

It’s this issue of money that dominates PUMA’s thoughts and is Clinton’s fatal weakness. On August 21st, the primary season legally ends and Hillary Clinton will no longer be able to fund raise to pay her campaign debts, which may run as high as $30 million (including an estimated $12 million she lent the campaign herself). At that point Clinton will have to either dip into her own pocket and pay these debts or she will default on literally thousands of small vendors who made the mistake of extending her campaign credit. If Clinton defaults on her campaign debts, she’ll never be able to run for president again. That does not bother me at all.

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton-has-puma-by-ears-and.html

Well with all those debt, Hillary won’t be able to run again if she default. She has until august to find $10 million or move it to her senate re-election account.

It could very well be that part of Hillary network is still on, to squeeze some donation to pay her debt. But I doubt she is even close to $10m.  June report will be out in 2 weeks. We shall see.

>>> “I think that a lot of the “pumas” were never progressive, never activist, never committed Democrats, but are centrist to moderate right voters who just can’t vote for a black man.”

I’ve voted Dem since I turned 21 in 1970, except once.  Never voted for a Repub in my life.  Started my activism in the late 60’s at UARK with the anti-war movement.  Married twice—to people of other races.  (Coming up to my 20th anniversary in October, thanks.) Committed to Democracy, though wavering on the Democratic Party at the moment. Committed feminist and queer-lover.  And I grok where the PUMAs are coming from. 

I do not understand how your statement is anything but an attempt to dehumanize people who have been just as activist, just as Dem, and just as committed to the progressive movement as you have been.  Given that you just called them all racists, maybe more committed than you are.

>>> “What Hillary-hate? B.O. supporters I know have been pro-Obama and not anti-HRC, except over the Florida and Michigan debacle in which Obama stuck with the national party’s ruling and HRC disregarded it. Most people in the real Democratic world want ‘Anybody But Bush (and clone McCain)’.”

I accept what you are saying about not having personally encountered CDS, but the evidence of it is out there.  HRC supporters found it overwhelming.  If you are interested, there are plenty of articles on blogs and MSM that detail this:  see the recent Guardian article for example. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/hillaryclinton.uselections2008

There are also valid and differing points of view on the details of the delegate process; details can be found everywhere online.  Most of what drives PUMAs is a deep frustration at the underlying undemocratic process, which they are asking to have redressed in FUTURE elections. 
http://annabellep.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/declaration-of-objections/#comments

>>> “Hillary’s Choose Your Own Debtventure!”

Most PUMAs are in complete agreement that sexism is not the ONLY reason HRC ‘lost’ and that her campaign made grave errors.  So when you put forth this argument, many PUMAs look at it with wide-eyes.  OK, so you don’t want to listen to the other side, that’s your right, but to make counter-arguments against arguments that have long been conceded is really a waste of energy.

Many like me also struggle with the fact that on the face of it we should “logically” support BO.  However, my distrust for BO has grown rather than diminished over the last several months and I do not like to be threatened and denigrated for my ideas and ideals.  Threats and denigration are pretty much what I get from most BO supporters. 
.

“but the evidence of it is out there.  HRC supporters found it overwhelming.  If you are interested, there are plenty of articles on blogs and MSM that detail this:  see the recent Guardian article for example.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/hillaryclinton.uselections2008
JSF on 07/04 at 09:32 AM “

That article is written by shakes and zuzu, their entire primary posting consisting singularly on “sexism” issue. That’s from a sub 10K blog, hardly “MSM” (that article is net only btw.) Hardly “mainstream and widely accepted pov” as you like to believe.

The problem with hillary supporters “evidence”: everybody is so busy making their own case from their narrow point of view, they lost perspective. As a group of supporters Hillary blogs are not very effective. They sound like bunch of cranks and kooks who get really angry when shown other better data. Then they retreat to highly moderated environment and listening to their own opinion echoing in a small room. Error and wishful thinking propagate instead of being corrected.

THAT is how Hillary lost all the top blogs. And ultimately eat up Hillary core supporters isolating them from larger voters online.

“Most PUMAs are in complete agreement that sexism is not the ONLY reason HRC ‘lost’ ”

most puma can only agree that it’s Hillary or nobody else. The entire discourse has been hijacked by feckless ranting and republican operative.  The biggest of PUMA blogs are all republican talking points by now. The rest of Hillary feminists blogs are completely lost in their Hillary or nothing talking point.

All of them contain nothing but bitter attack. (scan them all. The retrospective, no analysis, no solution. definitely not looking at issue or larger political agenda. nothing. It’s all continuous attacks.)

You distrust “OB” but your action completely propel GOP candidate? nice.

Big question: why should anybody TRUST YOU that you are not a repug operative? Why shouldn’t the rest of party shut you down with maximum force. You don’t even consider Hillary post-primary action anymore.

Chrissy et al.:

These “PUMAs” aren’t Hillary supporters. They’re Republicans who are disingenuously sowing the sewing the seeds of division, under fake identities, which you state at the end of your comment. Ignore them, tell them to fuck off, whatever, but don’t try to debate them-- they’re trying to provoke a backlash from ex-Hillary voters.

JSF: go fuck yourself, you Republican troll.

I’m still waiting for Hillary to endorse the puma’s.  :(

“I’m not voting for McCain, he is obviously not on my side.  But then, he doesn’t claim to be.  Obama, in some mysterious way, is supposed to be backing my ideals.  But he is not.  Why on earth would a vote for this supreme ratfuckery?  And why would I follow along with the clueless dolts such as yourself who are blind to it?”

I know....it’s worse to have a sexist president who claims to be un-sexist and convinces his female followers that he isn’t sexist than to have a sexist president who publicly broadcasts his sexism. At least it is easy to identify, point out, and go against the sexism of someone who is overtly sexist. With someone as two-faced and lying as BO, so many clueless people have been convinced that he isn’t sexist. It’s so sad that women who call themselves feminists can’t even identify sexism unless it’s overt and in their face, like overturning Roe. Not only that but that the only thing they care about is abortion rights. I don’t think abortion rights in the case of rape, incest, or harm to the mother will ever be taken away in any administration, because Republicans can’t risk pissing American women off that badly. So....I’m supposed to be voting for Obama to preserve America’s right to penile-vaginal intercourse free from the possibility of childbirth? That’s what feminism’s most pressing concern in 2008 is?

I’m a feminist and soon to be professional. What I care about in terms of policies that I