that shit smelled like rat-fucking a mile away.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

(_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….

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.

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?

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.

“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: 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.)

“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

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

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’d like a president to show commitment to, something Obama obviously is against, is workplaces free from gender based discrimination. I care that in the future I won’t have to go into an OR and hear sexual jokes directed at me by a surgeon (which is very common) and not be able to do anything about it because although there are rules and regulations codified on paper about sexual harrassment, if I file a complaint, I will be seen as a troublemaker by the institution and face retaliatory punitive actions. I care that I don’t want to be turned down for a high-level job I am well-qualified for just because the gatekeepers to those jobs use stereotypes to exclude women: i.e., will I be tough enough, or since I am accomplished “for a woman” will I be able to “submit” to authority. I care that I don’t want to be treated differently, more toughly than my male peers—be grilled, asked factual questions, be interrupted while answering, and be on the receiving end of patronizing attacks, which make the women on the receiving end more likely to make mistakes, to be tense or worn down earlier in the day, and to be perceived as not being collegial—while men are allowed to ramble, digress, ask questions rather than answer, and are never interrupted.

These are just a few examples of the kinds of subtle gender-based workplace discrimination I care about and want to see eliminated. They factor highest in my decision of who to vote for (or not vote at all) because these and more tactics of subtle sex discrimination were used unrelentingly against Hillary this year.

Marcotte and likeminded “feminists” don’t get to decide what issues are most important to those feminists who live a different life than they do (and who they think are dumb). If abortion is the only feminist concern to them (and yeahhhh….I’m sure all of Obama followers CARE SO MUCH about the women in Iran…...) then they should just say that. Just say it- that their top women’s rights issue is abortion. My top issue is workplace sex discrimination. They (obama’s “feminist” followers) don’t care about workplace sex discrimination, so why the hell should I care about their piddly abortion rights? I know abortion rights will never be taken away in the most dire of circumstances-rape, incest, etc. They don’t give a shit about my concerns, so I don’t give a shit about theirs.

Another ranting idiot who hasn’t done homework before start whining.

coin=swan. your grammar is still poor. go back to elementary school.

and all you fake feminists like marcotte: why bother calling yourselves feminists when you clearly don’t care about any issues but repro rights? just call yourselves reproductive rights activists, because that would be more fitting. YOU are dragging the good name of feminism through the mud, and you all are retarded as hell if you think the only way a PUMA posting here is not a “troll” working for McCain’s campaign is if they habitually post here or on other blogs. Get off your fucking computer and get out into the real world. Talk to some people IN PERSON, some people out of your normal narrow range of internet-contained social and intellectual activities. You know, there ARE feminists out there who don’t visit stupid dumbed down girl power feminist blogs every day and post on them, feminists who find those blogs nauseating and stupid and only check back 3 times a year (actually that’s me, don’t know about any other PUMAs). Get a fucking life and stop thinking everyone is working for McCain because you haven’t seen them posting here before (though you probably won’t see them posting here again with the kind of behavior you all show). You all seem so paranoid, I think it’s perhaps YOU that are hysterical and mentally unstable.

So you vote for the guy who called his wife a cunt in public? Yeah, that’ll stop workplace discrimination against women.

Workplace discrimination cases go to the SAME COURTS as abortion rights cases. Remember Ledbetter?

Anyone checked in on the Chosen One’s latest pronouncement on choice?

It ain’t pretty.

FISA ain’t pretty.  The Koh thing ain’t pretty.

PUMA is ratf*cking?

You wish. But why do you wish it?

Beats me.

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-where-else-to-go.html

One reason people did not trust Hillary, she didn’t even show up for FISA vote in Feb.

Hillary Ducks FISA Vote
The bill was soundly defeated, but one interesting no show was Senator Hillary Clinton. All three Senators running for President are in the Potomac region for today’s primaries, but unfortunately it appears that Senator Clinton did not have the time or the inclination to take a moment and take a stand on this important issue. At the very least it seems that she could have sent Bill in her place.
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12862

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out to a die-hard HRC backer the other day:

  I remember a few months ago, when the Senate was preparing to vote on amnesty and FISA, and we had to force statements out of Clinton and Obama. Both of the statements they issued were vague and non-committal, and I and many other bloggers were extremely critical of both. In response, Obama almost immediately issued a much clearer and more committed statement. Clinton never did. Were you yelling and kicking and screaming back then like you claim today you would be doing if she were still running? I don’t recall that.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/21/11638/4028/306/539715

pepito—The ledbetter decision was based on the fact that there is a 180-day period since the latest discriminatory act within which the person who is discriminated against must file their complaint with the EEOC. It is the same as with the OCR (office for civil rights).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZS.html

“Held: Because the later effects of past discrimination do not restart the clock for filing an EEOC charge, Ledbetter’s claim is untimely.”

There was nothing wrong with the Court’s decision. The 180 day rule is one that applies in EEOC and OCR complaints.

And calling his wife a cunt in public is not workplace harrassment/discrimination. Workplace sex discrimination is what Obama took no position against and actually took advantage of during the primaries, and by doing so, has more given legitimacy to (and so have his followers). Peace.

Straight Talk Excess: John McCain called wife “cunt”, “trollop”

John McCain called his wife Cindy a “cunt” in front of at least five witnesses on the campaign trail in 1992, according to Cliff Schecter’s new book:

  Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days. [The Real McCain, PoliPoint Press, 2008.]

A “trollop”? John McCain, is indeed vying to be our first Ancient American president.

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/straight-talk-e.html

Welcome back db!

I thought you promised not to comment here anymore (like, thirty times).  For someone who spends so much time in the real world, and only checks “girl power” feminist blogs three times a year, your gazillion posts these last few days beg to differ.

Putting aside the absolute inanity of this statement: “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,” let’s talk about the myth you’re currently perpetuating: the unsupported assertion that McCain is somehow better than Obama when it comes to gender-based workplace discrimination.

Of course, you fail to mention that Obama cosponsored and actively supported the Fair Pay Restoration Act (which would have lifted the time limit that women have to file suit against companies for pay discrimination) and that McCain opposed it and didn’t even bother to vote on the cloture motion (because he wanted to protect big business from litigation).  McCain’s clearly has the best interests of women, and not corportate interests, in mind.  Though, maybe if you ask McCain nicely (or call him “retarded as hell”) he’ll give you his ear and work hard to pass a law that punishes men who “ramble, digress, ask questions rather than answer,” which I know you find sooooo annoying, and which is far more important that bodily autonomy.

OK, time to work yourself into another tizzy and call me a faux-minist.

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

Hillary: I didn’t know I vote for war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjUebX01pNY

John McCain - War Monger (till the rest of the century)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEc2ot3QGB4

Check my actual comments (if you can read) and you will see that I only said I would not comment anymore at most 1-2 times. I did say however that I would not check back on that thread where I posted again. That is not the same as saying I won’t comment on pandagon period. And FYI, my three times/year of checking girl-power feminist blogs is today, yesterday, and the day before. I’ll check it again in 2009, if I feel like it.

Anyways, to reply to your assertion that McCain is not better than Obama on workplace sex discrimination, I never said he is better. I said “They (obama’s “feminist” followers) don’t care about workplace sex discrimination, so why the hell should I care about their piddly abortion rights?” Obama and his followers do not care about eliminating workplace discrimination as much as I think progressives (and people who called themselves feminists) should. If the democrats are the only party that purports to look out for women’s rights in the workplace, but they select a candidate who was actually the lesser champion of women’s rights in the workplace (obama) then that says a whole lot about where they feel women should be in our society. And before you go on about how Clinton was no better on women’s workplace issues, refer to this about Clinton’s feminist agenda, which extended far beyond repro rights (unlike yours):

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=seven_ways_hillary_clinton_changed_our_politics#hayes

“...the policies she has advocated have been aimed at improving the status of women as a class.

Clinton has always been staunchly pro-choice, but her feminist agenda went far beyond that. Clinton has been a strong advocate of expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act, guaranteed paid sick leave, promoting workplace flexibility, and outlawing workplace discrimination against parents. She has also championed universal pre-K and high-quality child care, providing reproductive and other health care services for women in the U.S. and greater access to reproductive health care overseas, fighting AIDS in the U.S. and globally, and expanding women’s opportunity as a tool for global economic development.

But the part of Clinton’s feminist policy agenda that I particularly appreciate has been her efforts to strengthen anti-discrimination legislation. For one thing, Clinton is a co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by making it easier to sue for wage discrimination, as well as toughing the enforcement of equal pay laws. Clinton has also co-sponsored another piece of legislation, the Fair Pay Restoration Act, which would reverse the Supreme Court’s egregious Ledbetter decision and give women more time to file a lawsuit if they believe they are being paid unequally.

Finally, Clinton came out strongly in favor of fully funding the E.E.O.C., a crucial step toward enforcing antidiscrimination law. Ever since Ronald Reagan became president, the E.E.O.C. has been crippled by destaffing and budget cuts. If we are serious about making workplace discrimination against women a thing of the past, putting teeth back into the E.E.O.C. is a crucial first step. “

She did a hell of a lot more than just co-sponsor the Fair Pay Restoration Act, which she, Obama and a bunch of other senators co-sponsored together. That act would only be helpful to those who wish to get pay that was denied to them in the past but that they couldn’t sue for due to the 180 days having passed. It does nothing for the women who are experiencing discrimination on the job NOW, unlike Clinton’s support for fully funding the EEOC, among other things.

Not only did BO’s supporters fail to support the FEMINIST democrat who stood up for women’s rights, but they didn’t take a stand against and took full advantage of all the sexist discrimination she experienced. I don’t trust a candidate who didn’t even make a flowery speech to stop sex-based discrimination but did so to stop race-based discrimination to stand up for women’s rights in the workplace, nor do I trust his followers to care about it. They don’t give a damn about women’s rights in the workplace, but BO will do what little he needs to do in order to appear to care about them to get the support and votes of feminists (like broadcasting his very calculated, and in my eyes miserly, nod to women’s rights in the workplace with his cosponsorship of the FPRA)

If a progressive doesn’t take a stand for women’s rights in the workplace, who will? McCain won’t, but at least he doesn’t feign to be woman-friendly. At least we know he’s a misogynist, whereas BO would like to have us think otherwise by throwing us crumbs when Hillary was offering us the loaf of bread. You can take the crumbs if you like, Jen, while I’ll hold out for the loaf of bread. Hopefully I’ll see it before I die, but if in 15 years nothing has changed with the Democrats in terms of sexism, I think I’ll move to Sweden.

DB: you cut-and-pasted, word for word, from the following: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=seven_ways_hillary_clinton_changed_our_politics.

You are a Republican ratfucker. And a stupid one, to not even try to parse someone else’s words, and make a Google search a bit harder.

I don’t honestly believe there are ANY actual Hillary-supporting PUMAs. This whole PUMA thing is an out-and-out fraud, with Republican operatives posing as anti-Obama Democrats, trying to perpetuate the idea that there is a Democrat schism.

You would think at least one of these assholes would write some original content for their trolling expeditions, but that would require learning something about the actual issues, and knowledge for knowledge’s sake doesn’t seem compatible with Republican Party enrollment.

Get the fuck out of here, and stay out, creepy Republican fuckhead.

you are such a dumbass, you obviously missed the fact that i not only put the copied and pasted part in quotes, but also POSTED THE LINK. go get a brain before you go slinging pejoratives around.

and fyi, I am posting this info for other people’s enlightenment. I READ the articles I posted, and was ENCOURAGING others to read them. And you can’t get me the fuck out of anywhere, you stupid fuckface. I’ll leave whenever the hell I want to.

And where is the actual contrast with what Obama’s positions are? He advocates full funding of EEOC, and voted for Ledbetter.

While McCain “missed” the Ledbetter Fair Pay vote, and says he’ll put more judges on the SCOTUS that would make similar decisions to the five vote majority opinion in Ledbetter.

You don’t actually have any actual policy contrasts… all you got was the closing paragraph alleging that any Obama change would be insufficient, besides your cut-and-paste job.

Yes, Hillary has been a key player in legislating against workplace discrimination. And there isn’t an iota of difference between her approach and Obama’s. You try to let people draw their own inferences by failing to compare the two, inferences that would lead readers to believe that Obama’s approach is tepid and incremental.

Why would you do this? Clearly not because you care about women’s issues, as McCain, as I wrote above, is demonstrably worse than Obama, while Obama is not demonstrably worse than Clinton.

By playing up non-existent divisions between policies Clinton advocates and policies Obama advocates, you are attempting to create doubt in the minds of people who are concerned about the issue. This serves no purpose except to help McCain. You are in effect a Republican operative, and I would suspect you are probably a Republican activist, because your rhetoric doesn’t support the positions you ostensibly advocate, while urging potential Obama supporters to doubt his stated policies.

Go hang, ratfucker. You’re gonna get nothing but a call-out here.

DH goal is to increase Obama negative, increase discontent inside Hillary supporter, suppress democrat enthusiasm if not suggesting voting green. If lucky McCain.

DH is not interested in straight forward comparison or list of issues and policy.

Thus you see the strange pattern of argument. (quoting green? wtf?) Is not like democrat doesn’t have platform or woman group.

Several Republicans said in interviews that momentum and the terms of the political debate favored Mr. Obama right now — and, worse, that the McCain camp’s attacks had been scattershot and inconsistent despite his advantage of wrapping up the Republican nomination in March.

“A lot of us on the right are waiting for the quarterback to call the play, and we will take our lead from John McCain when he selects his approach against Obama,” said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant not affiliated with the McCain campaign.

McCain advisers say they have plenty of time — four months — to derail the Obama candidacy, yet acknowledged that running against a “movement candidate” — in the words of one McCain aide — had been challenging even for deft politicians like the Clintons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/us/politics/04strategy.html

McCain camp is definitely desperate, I hope they waste a lot of money on the net.

Ok, I am doing a point by point comparison of HRC and Obama, so this will take several posts.

1) expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act—from HRC’s website: http://hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3743  “Hillary’s plan would set an ambitious goal for all states to implement a paid family leave program by the year 2016, and offer $1 billion per year in grants to encourage innovative paid family leave programs at the state level. Hillary would also extend the Family Medical Leave Act to cover 13 million additional workers across the country, and guarantee every American worker seven days of paid sick leave to help them deal with a health crisis faced by themselves or their children….Hillary Clinton’s national family leave initiative will: (a) set a goal of having all states adopt family leave programs by 2016; (b) provide generous grants to states to develop family leave programs in their states; and (c) establish the federal government as a model workplace in providing family leave.”
From BO’s website: “Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.”—http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

Any feminist, after checking out HRC’s detailed, comprehensive, informed plan and comparing it to BO’s uninformed, single phrase “improve…..family medical leave” can see who is serious about doing it and who is putting it on their website to attract female voters.

2) guaranteed paid sick leave—“Barack Obama supports efforts to guarantee workers seven days of paid sick leave per year, a moderate proposal that should not impose too onerous a burden on employers.” (same link as before)

“Hillary would also… guarantee every American worker seven days of paid sick leave to help them deal with a health crisis faced by themselves or their children.” (same link as before)

BO and HRC are the same on this issue. Neither is better than the other.

3) promoting workplace flexibility—HRC: (from same link) ” Empowering Employees to Request Workplace Flexibility – Hillary is proposing to empower employees to request workplace flexibility, such as change in work hours, telecommuting, working part-time or job-sharing. The proposal will not require that employers accept these requests, but simply that employers seriously consider them. However, by letting employees request leave, the provision can help change the working environment to one that is more responsive of the needs of parents. In the United Kingdom, after adoption of a similar law, 7 out of 10 requests made by employees were granted, and 80% of employers surveyed felt that flexible workplace arrangements were easily accommodated in their organization….Establish a new public-private partnership program on model workplaces at the Department of Labor. The partnership will establish Model Workplace awards to highlight businesses that establish innovative workplace flexibility programs. It will provide grants to these and other businesses to expand their models to serve more employees. And the partnership will work with these businesses to document and share their models with other employers. The partnership will promote the most innovative workplace approaches in areas such as telecommuting; reduced work schedules; flexible arrival/departure times that allow for redefining work-day and work-week; offering on-site services such as child care; providing predictable work schedules; and allowing people to trade shifts without going through a bureaucratic process.”

BO- (same link)—I’m not seeing any info on his position (or maybe, lack of a position, which seems to be his MO) on this workplace flexibility on the women’s issues page. If anyone sees any info on his position, please post it.

4) outlawing workplace discrimination against parents—HRC’s website (same link) “Respecting Parents. Most people believe that current law already protects parents from being discriminated against because they are parents with caregiving responsibilities, but unfortunately too many mothers and fathers are not protected. A pregnant woman should not be fired because her employer does not allow any employee to take unpaid leave for a temporary disability. A father should not be fired because he has responsibilities toward his children. As President, Hillary will work to prohibit discrimination against parents.”—This is decidedly vague, sounding a lot like Obama’s website’s policy position instead of her usual detail.

Bo’s website—no position at all.

5) high-quality child care- HRC’s website- (same link) “III. BETTER ACCESS TO HIGHER QUALITY CHILD CARE

Hillary has worked on expanding access and improving the quality of child care in our country for decades. The Bush Administration has essentially frozen the level of child care funding for the last eight years. As a result, the real purchasing power of child care subsidies has fallen significantly. According to the Bush Administration’s own estimates, 300,000 children will lose child care assistance by 2010, and 150,000 have already lost child care assistance since 2000.

Hillary believes we need to increase child care funding through the Child Care and Development Block Grant and return the program to it’s original intent: to serve working families. She will also work with Congress to reform the Dependent Care Tax Credit to address its shortcomings. And she will improve the quality of child care by investing in:

  * Helping states improve and enforce licensing and safety standards;
  * Supporting innovative public-private partnerships that increase the supply of affordable, high quality child care for working families;
  * Promoting and supporting quality rating systems that help families evaluate programs; and
  * Supporting workforce initiatives that help child care providers get the right training.

Enabling Working Parents to Take Leave to Stay Home with Their Children. Hillary has long supported giving every parent a real choice about whether to stay home and care for their children full time or work outside the home. That is why she is proposing to allow qualifying, low-income parents who want to stay at home rather than place their children in child care to receive child care subsidies through the Child Care Development Block Grant. This program would award grants to states to support stay-at-home parents. Currently, only parents who place their children in child care are eligible to receive assistance to the Child Care Development Block Grant. “

BO’s website—same old tired sentence that attempts to capture his “policy position” on 5 different issues concerning working women and mothers…..“Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.”

How, Barack Obama, HOW????

5) universal pre-K child care- HRC at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1743:

“Hillary Clinton announced a proposal to provide quality pre-kindergarten to all children to ensure that they are ready to learn when they start school. Currently, less than 20 percent—only 800,000 out of four million—of four year olds and 120,000 three year olds are enrolled in state pre-K programs, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research. Hillary’s proposal would ensure that every child who needs pre-K would receive it by providing universal access to high quality pre-K for four year olds in five years through a federal-state partnership. Her proposal also provides flexibility to allow states to serve younger children once they have provided pre-K to all four year olds who need it.”

BO-no pre-K child care initiative. Wow.

6) I am skipping repro and health related to women since everyone and their mother knows BO’s and HRC’s policy positions on those. No comparison needed.

7) Paycheck Fairness Act—according to the Prospect, the Paycheck Fairness Act “would strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by making it easier to sue for wage discrimination, as well as toughing the enforcement of equal pay laws.”

HRC on this issue: She fucking co-sponsored it: see http://www.bpwusa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4419 from which I am copying and pasting below:

Sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the Paycheck Fairness Act seeks to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) by providing more effective remedies to victims of sex discrimination in the payment of wages.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would update and strengthen the EPA in several ways:

• Toughen the remedy provisions of the EPA by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to recover compensatory and punitive damages;

• Make it easier for an EPA lawsuit to proceed as a class action suit;

• Require the EEOC to survey the current pay data and issue regulations within 18 months requiring employers to submit any needed pay data identified by the race, sex, and national origin of employees;

• Prohibit employers from punishing employees for sharing salary information with their co-workers;

• Tighten the affirmative defense in gender discrimination lawsuits to force employers to prove that a pay differential between men and women is caused something other than sex;

• Strengthen the provision under the current EPA that broadly states wage comparisons must be made between employees working at the same establishment, which allows for courts to interpret the clause to mean same physical place of business;

• Allow for DOL guidelines for employers to voluntarily compare wages paid for difference jobs to determine the pay scales reflect the requirements of the jobs and establishes an award that recognizes the advancements of employers;

• Provide increased training of EEOC employees to identify and respond to wage claims;

• Require DOL to reinstate equal pay activities and investigatory enforcement tools for cases of gender discrimination, which have been eliminated under the current administration;

• Establish a competitive grant program to develop training for women and girls on compensation negotiations.

BO on Pay Equity: “Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…” Wow, what a plan Barack, what a fucking plan. You sound so informed and sincere!

6) Fair Pay Restoration Act- as we know, HRC and BO cosponsored it, so they are even on this issue.

7)Fully funding the EEOC—BO- on his disability action plan sheet at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/DisabilityPlanFactSheet.pdf

“Increasing Funding for Enforcement: The Bush Administration has cut funding for the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP), the agencies tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination laws that protect workers with
disabilities. Staffing for these agencies has also been significantly reduced. As a result, while the number of
complaints filed with those agencies has remained steady, the number of charges resolved by the EEOC has
declined. More than 100,000 charges were resolved in FY 1997 and FY 1998, but in FY 2006, fewer than
75,000 were resolved. Barack Obama will fully fund and increase staffing for the EEOC and the OFCCP to
reduce charge backlogs and to prosecute efforts to remedy systemic discrimination. To assure that the federal
government holds itself to a high anti-discrimination standard, Obama will appoint a Chair of the EEOC and
nominate commissioners who are committed to enforcing anti-discrimination laws.”

HRC on fully funding the EEOC- at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3306:

“4. Combat ongoing racial and sex discrimination in the labor market by improving laws and expanding enforcement… Fully fund the EEOC.  Restore leadership at the EEOC committed to policing the nation’s employment discrimination laws, and to vigorously referring cases to DOJ for enforcement…..reverse the staffing cuts to the EEOC and strengthen the employment section of the Civil Rights Division.”

So BO and HRC are the same on EEOC funding.

SO, final analysis on the differences between BO and HRC on issues of importance to working women and their families: 

HRC is much more credible, has a much more detailed and believable, workable plan for FMLA expansion.

HRC is committed to workplace flexibility, a huge issue for working mothers and working women with aging parents and other family members to take care of. BO doesn’t address workplace flexibility for women.

HRC wants to eliminate workplace discrimination against working parents (which, actually only works against working mothers, as studies have shown that working fathers actually earn MORE money than working childless men for equal work, but mothers who work full-time actually earn LESS money than childless women for equal work). HRC has a position and an intention to eliminate this discrimination, but does not have a detailed plan. BO on the other hand does not even address the issue.

HRC wants to give us better access to high quality child care and pre-K child care and has very specific plans of how to achieve them. BO doesn’t consider these issues of importance. He does, however, in his “poverty” section of his “women’s issues” page have a description of expanding after-school programs for kids, but is not clear on who that will target and how he will do it.

And finally, my favorite: HRC CO-SPONSORED the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would eliminate pay discrimination against women. BO pays lip service to “enforcing the Equal Pay Act” but doesn’t say how.

Wow, I’m glad I went through all this. Whatever doubts I had in my mind about whether BO was throwing measly crumbs at uninformed women to get their votes are now dispelled. Face it, all you so-called progressives who support BO: your progressivism doesn’t encompass feminism. You didn’t support the candidate who would have eased the ridiculous second shift working women bear the burden of and therefore helped them accomplish and achieve more in the workplace. You didn’t support the candidate who wanted women to make as much money as you do, for equal work. You didn’t support the candidate who wanted to end discrimination against working mothers in a country that underpays working mothers and makes them feel guilty 24/7 with all the “bad mother” stories in the media, while overpaying fathers and putting them on a pedestal culturally. You didn’t want women to achieve equal footing with you. So you convinced a bunch of them that all that women really need to worry about preserving is their right to an abortion, because nothing else will really matter in their lives but that. And they ate it up, because they want grrrl power and abortion rights are the only feminist issue they have heard of, so now you have a lot of support for your anti-feminist candidate.

Not all of us are that blind. You can keep your Obama girls in the kitchen, while the rest of us go on trying to achieve equality. And we will do it without your help, eventually.

FMLA: you say Obama’s entire position can be summed up as “BO’s uninformed, single phrase “improve…..family medical leave” can see who is serious about doing it and who is putting it on their website to attract female voters”—actually, look at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/ The o.nly difference I see is no reference to the 2016 goal. Everything else positively advocated for in Hillary’s platform is there. Your facile summary, which clearly involved little actual research into these issues you claim to care about, neglected Obama’s extensive proposals at the above link.

Paid sick leave: as you acknoweldge, no difference.

Workplace flexibility: Obama’s proposal almost identical to Hillary’s. See above link.

Workplace discrimination against parents: http://obama.3cdn.net/0674bc11de8c3022d1_jhzwmv801.pdf - exact same proposal.

Innovative childcare/universal pre-k: if this issue were really important to you, you would know the history of this in the campaign. Obama’s proposal for federal education spending dwarfed Hillary’s, and went far beyond her plan in early childhood education. This was a huge issue in November of last year, and those of us closely following the Democratic campaign knew about the debate. But in November of last year, you were probably working hard for Giuliani or Romney, weren’t you? Of course you wouldn’t know about the weeks where this was probably the #1 campaign issue in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Paycheck Fairness Act/Fair Pay Act : Here’s what you say: “BO on Pay Equity: ‘Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…‘Wow, what a plan Barack, what a fucking plan. You sound so informed and sincere! ” - you don’t seem to be aware that Obama cosponsored both bills.

Look, I’m going to stop this. You really didn’t do any research on Obama’s stance on these issues.

I imagine there’s only the smallest chance that you’re not a Republican operative, but instead you were a Hillary supporter who was late to the game, didn’t research the issues, and got caught up in the media-fueled personality war and the intense rhetoric that sought to exploit the difference between the political styles of Hillary and Obama, and the personal attacks that you felt were directed towards you and other Hillary supporters on the internet.

You cite these issues as though you care deeply about them. If that’s the case, a little research should address your concerns, and since McCain is a total failure on these issues, you would be able to put aside any ego concerns coming from the back-and-forth invective between Hillary supporters and “Obama supporters” (as I said before, I was an Edwards voter, but I care about these issues so I want a Democrat to win). And if that’s the case, and you merely needed answers, I apologize for attacking you and am happy that I have helped you recognize that Obama’s policy proposals go into great detail about these issues you care about so deeply.

BUT… there’s hardly any chance of that. Like the founders of the various PUMA groups, you are almost certainly a McCain supporter lying about who you really are, in order to divide the Democrats and get your candidate elected. You’ll change your name, and come back here, or go to some other liberal website, and try to ratfuck the Democratic Party and get your Republican elected. If you really do believe in the issues you claim to believe in, you won’t have any problem with me telling ratfucking lying Republican scum to go get fucked.

You’re welcome.

db - in November, HRC is not on the ballot. You have the choice of Obama, who as you have identified holds identical stances on many feminist issues, or McCain, who doesn’t.

Yes, you could vote for McKinney, but you know that she doesn’t have wide enough support to win. You’re well aware that unless Bush declares martial law, we’re going to get Obama or McCain. And your complaint is that Obama’s website is too vague about his support of women’s issues.

It’s really interesting that when BO betrayed the people who felt he was representing them on FISA 18,000 people protested on that site.  He responded with a statement that basically told them to get over it. He told the HRC supporters to get over it too, and there were a lot of HRC supporters.

Next you will probably say all those people who are ready to bail on Obama over FISA are also republican ratfuckers?  This commentator doesn’t seem to think so:

“Some defending Obama’s position questioned whether the protestors were really from the Obama camp or were Republicans who had logged on to wreak havoc. However, since MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site, one can check the profile of each commenter, see how long they have been active on the site, what action groups they are part of, and so on. It appeared that many angry critics were people who had put a lot of time and money into the campaign.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/obama-tries-and-fails-to_b_110951.html

I’m enjoying watching Obama turn on the people who wanted to vote for him, and tell them to put up and shut up.  Because it happened to us first, and none of you cared. 

Will there come a time when it happens to you, too?  When he goes far enough that even you will get fed up?  Or are you just going to put up with anything he does, and continue saying that no matter what kind of stand he takes, no matter how much he betrays what he was thought to represent, that it just doesn’t matter.  Can you just get over anything he does, and console yourself by saying he’s better than McCain?  Where would you draw the line?  Will you vote for him no matter what he does?

He can tell everyone he blows off to just get over it, because we have no choice now.

It’s pretty obvious bunny, has no interest on social justice, spying or what not. (otherwise he would be concern too, and certainly know Hillary and McCain are not in position to show leadership with FISA)

- Hillary shows zero leadership in FISA issue. She run away and hide.
- McCain is continuation of Bush crime

At issue with FISA is political corruption. How candidate is influenced by big telecom money. Hillary and her advisors receive massive amount of money from lobbyists She is not in position to antagonize telcos.

Only republican ratfuckers refuse to acknowledge the degree of DC status quo corruption.

From the Los Angeles Times
Clinton rolls a sizable pork barrel
The senator embraces ‘earmarks’ as a way to help N.Y. She’s received campaign funds from project beneficiaries.

Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.

All told, Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects in her state since her election to the Senate, much of it for public works projects funded in conjunction with fellow Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer and others in the New York congressional delegation.

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=567059

Hillary Clinton secured more earmarks for pet projects in the Defense funding bill than anyone except Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, according to an article in The Hill.

It puts her total at 26 earmarks worth $148 million. Barack Obama has one. John McCain disapproves of earmarks, which escape normal scrutiny, and has none.

“She has learned how to play the game and to use her power on the committee to bring home dollars for her constituents,” Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense tells The Hill. “She knows how to toot her own horn with the constituents, and that will likely play into her national campaigns.”

Among the needy constituents and worthy projects:

“Clinton’s beneficiaries include defense giant Northrop Grumman, which secured $6 million for the AN/SPQ-9B radar; New York-based Telephonics, which won $5 million for a standardized aircraft wireless intercom system for the National Guard Black Hawk helicopter fleet; Plug Power Inc., another New York state company, which got $3 million for fuel cell power technology; and Alliant Tech Systems (ATK), which won $3.5 million for the X-51 B robust scramjet research. ATK is based in Utah, but it has a tactical propulsion-and-controls division in Ronkonkoma, N.Y.”
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/06/hillarys_earmarks.html

Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks
Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has secured more earmarks in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill than any other Democrat except for panel Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The bill contains about $5.4 billion in earmarks, or projects not requested by the Pentagon. With their slim majority, the Democrats on the panel claimed two-thirds of that sum. Clinton is among their more junior members.

“She is willing to legislatively roll up her sleeves and bring home the bacon for her constituents, which she can translate into working for the people across the country,” Ellis said. “It is also her recognition that she still has a day job as a senator from New York.”

Clinton’s beneficiaries include defense giant Northrop Grumman, which secured $6 million for the AN/SPQ-9B radar; New York-based Telephonics, which won $5 million for a standardized aircraft wireless intercom system for the National Guard Black Hawk helicopter fleet; Plug Power Inc., another New York state company, which got $3 million for fuel cell power technology; and Alliant Tech Systems (ATK), which won $3.5 million for the X-51 B robust scramjet research.

ATK is based in Utah, but it has a tactical propulsion-and-controls division in Ronkonkoma, N.Y.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html

There are people here who are just trying to stir up anger and resentment so that the party and the left are divided, not just for this election but forever.  They thrive off of hate and anger and want to perpetuate that no matter the consequences or the truth. In fact, they use rhetoric, double-speak, and the most juvenile school-yard taunts to increase both their own endorphins and the adrenalin that comes from righteous indignation and a very perverted substance-of-we-feeling and teamism.  Now who might this be, on this blog, and strictly judging by the results and the evidence at hand? It’s the so-called BO supporters here who are the real Repub trolls.

Does Hillary Believe in net neutrality?  Her key person is a Telco lobbyist! (aka FISA pusher)

The problem with corruption in our politics is organized around the relationship between the advocates of wealth interests - lobbyists - and politicians.  Specifically, what concerns me here is Clinton’s commitment to a telco lobbyist written broadband plan called ‘Connect America’.  In contrast to both Edwards and Obama, who have well-constructed models for expanding access of an open internet, Clinton’s plan is simply a rehash of something called Connect Kentucky, a public-private partnership in Kentucky whose purpose is entirely unclear (data on Connect Kentucky is reported by telecom companies).  Notorious telecom shill Scott Cleland explains Clinton’s allegiance to telecom lobbyists better than I could with considered eloquence.

  Understandably, the glaring exclusion of net neutrality from the Senator’s Innovation agenda—after the radical left’s rhetoric claimed net neutrality was essential to “innovation”—signals to me that the Senator and her campaign have a pretty solid, practical and intuitive understanding of sound broadband policy.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2776

“Now who might this be, on this blog, and strictly judging by the results and the evidence at hand? It’s   ..the real Repub trolls.
JSF on 07/05 at 07:19 AM”

do you really expect, that sort of B-list blogging trick is going to work around here? Come on. Just because those sort of tricks work with dumb repug doesn’t mean it work this side of internet.

People read book and manual around here. (strategems, psych-op manual, counter insurgency man, social engineering.)

You gonna have to work harder than that, but thanks for telling me how what works in repug side.

....LOLz. this is haiiiiiiiilarioussss….

You know, as I was worshipping my B-rack Ob-ma statuette this morning, chanting my “Yes we can” prayers, and performing ceremonial sacrifices of the hopes and dreams of little girls, (as all of us obamabots are required to do), this morning, I had an epiphany.  Bunny, db, meingoldcountry, and all the other Pumas are right.  Their gentle, compelling, and nuanced arguments have shown me the error of my ways.

How dare my lord and savior Ob-ma move slightly to the center in order to win a national election?  I feel so betrayed by this shocking development that I have no choice but to vote for John McCain, who’s bold enough to continue to be a conservative asshole.  (Flip-flopping sux!!)

How dare Ob-ma win a primary against Hillary Clinton, the only true progressive feminist in the whole wide world (other than db).  I didn’t know until now that Obama had actually tried to win a primary against Clinton, rather than encourage everyone to vote for her instead of him.  Shameful!  I guess every time Ob-ma has taken a liberal stance, it’s just because he takes glee in lying to us (I never noticed that evil glint in his eyes, which proves it, until now).  McCain, on the other hand, is just pretending to hate women in order to trick Republicans into voting for him, so he can usher in a surprise new era of equality while screaming “gotcha!” to all of his knuckledragging supporters.  And besides, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t, right! One in the hand is better than two in the bush!  Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! 

But who cares about McCain, because really, this election will always be about Obama vs. Clinton.  I will not vote for NOBAMA (wow, I get glorious shivers up my spine just writing that), and nor will every woman, man, and charged particle I know (PUMAS ARE REAL!!1!1) because Hillary Clinton, who is no longer running, had a slightly more developed website.

It feels good to get that off my chest.  Time to go drill for oil off the coast!

Quality of puma trolling is definitely going down. It\‘s only been 2 posts with less than 700 long comments, and already falling apart. Come on guys, and you want to have floor fight in August?Then there is post convention general election.

Gotta keep inventing new lies. How will you fight the general public after convention? The old lies is not going to work.

also, how is the debt relief for Hillary going? A couple $K down $16millions to go. Mark Penn needs his pay.

It’s nice to know that at least Obama and the Obama backers will protect our right to choose and think we should have control over our own bodies. 

Oh, wait.  What’s that you say?  He thinks it’s ok to ban abortions in the third trimester?

But, I thought he was totally pro choice? 

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: “A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family.”

But now, he thinks women shouldn’t be able to choose to have an abortion, that they should legally be required to carry the pregnancy to term.

Well, that should be ok with the Obama feminists.  If they are ever carrying a fetus that turns out to have severe problems, and will not live after birth, they should go ahead and deliver the baby, even if it threatens their life and causes them to lose the ability to have more children. 

After all, they are ok trusting Obama, and if they are in that situation, they should just get over it.  He knows best, his Obama bully blogger boys know best, and she’s a feminist after all.  It’s her choice to vote for someone who won’t let her make decisions about her own body.

What, no way.  Obama is not completely pro choice?  Next you’ll be telling me he might not get us out of Iraq.  That he wants to drill for oil off the coast of Florida, that he won’t filibuster FISA, that he is backed by special interests.  There’s just no way he could be so hypocritical.  Is there?

Well, at least I trust him and his backers when they tell me I have no choice but to vote for him. 

Do I have absolutely no choice?  You know, he might be wrong about that too.

After all, there’s Cynthia McKinney

www.runcynthiarun.org

I would vote for her over Obama, I could vote for Kucinich, I could write in Hillary.  Looks like I do have some choices left.

Take a look at the site, puma4palin.blogspot.com

Yeah, because Clinton and Palin have anything in common besides a pair of X chromosomes each.

Check out this site again now, really funny, comparing Barack Obama to Chauncey Gardener from the movie, Being There:

puma4palin.blogspot.com

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

You misspelled “free ride”, I think. Clinton couldn’t have had a fairer deal then the one she got - the opportunity to compete in the primary based on the elections rules she approved at the beginning.

Well, it’s either gonna be McCain/Palin or …

Barack Obama starring as “Change” the Gardener in remake of movie classic, “Being There”, starring Peter Sellers as “Chance” the Gardener!

*HT to hs commenting on
puma4palin.blogspot.com