Hear, hear!
Posted by andgarden at June 23, 2008 12:32 PMFYI, many PUMAs are not committing to voting for McCain. In fact, I urge them to NOT committ to any candidate. It's better if the DNC recognizes the 18 million of us and gives us a fair and transparent convention where Hillary can make her case to the superdelegates. If that doesn't happen, if the DNC and the Obama campaign refuse to recognize and represent us, then we have to vote our consciences. The intent is to cause the DNC and especially Howard Dean, to suffer the consequences. You can't write off 18 million people and expect them to hand over their votes.
The threats about loss of reproductive freedom is falling on our deaf ears. There are already sufficient justices to do away with abortion now. And after the FISA fiasco, there is no guarantee that Obama will be particularly concerned with our constitutional rights. Maybe the best we can do this year is divided government because you can't force and unqualified, arrogant, lightweight on us who uses racism as a blunt instrument against us and expect that we'll get over it.
Nah Gah Happen.
rd,
hillary herself has conceded defeat. she has no intention of taking her lost cause to the convention. pay attention to that. and it's about a lot more than reproductive freedom. it's literally every issue. your intelligence and energy would be better spent trying to reform the party, which your current efforts are not going to do. and the party desperately needs efforts that will actually lead to reform.
Posted by Turkana at June 23, 2008 12:39 PMWhile I wouldn't go so far as to say that Obama is "unqualified" to be president, he comes pretty close. Iraq is a particular concern.
Getting our troops safely out of that hellhole is going to be a nontrivial exercise. As Wesley Clark said, the president needs to OWN the operation. He can't farm it out to DOD or some military czar, and it's going to take considerable moral courage to deal with the inevitable crises that will ensue.
Since speaking out against the war in 2002, Obama has shown no leadership on the matter--none. This, despite it's becoming his signature issue en route to the nomination. FISA isn't an aberration. It's a warning.
Posted by cygnus at June 23, 2008 12:58 PMTurkana;
I applaud your appeal to look at the issues rather than the candidate. However, I fail to understand why you have to slap Obama and his supporters doing that? The facts are the attacks were started by Clinton folks when Obama had successive victories and he went ahead of Hillary in delegate counts. That's where the comment from Bill Clinton about "Fairy Tale" came. Than the 3 AM phone call AD. Then the Hillary comment about how only she and McCain are qualified to be C-in-C. Then saying that Obama does not care about voters in MIchigan and Florida because he did not campaign there. Now McCain folks are begining to use these attacks against Obama.
When somebody demonizes his fellow party candidate that way, I lose respect for such person. That is why I switched for a Hillary supporter to a non-Hillary supporter. Now I am supporting Obama because he is the nominee and as you said his issues are better than those of McCain's.
Posted by suresh at June 23, 2008 01:03 PMWe've tried explaining to the Hillary diehards what a McCain candidacy would mean. Most, if not all, of them realize he's far worse than Obama, but are suggesting either voting for him or not voting as a measure of spite.
Abortion rights? "Nope, don't care." Constitutional rights? "Nope, don't care." 4 years of war and another million dead? "Nope, couldn't care less." 4 years of no action on health care? "Those uninsured children can die for all I care -- they didn't work hard enough for Hillary." 4 years of ignoring global warming? "Who cares about the future when Hillary isn't the nominee NOW!"
Posted by Anonny at June 23, 2008 01:06 PMDon't know or care about PUMA. I promised myself that if Dean, Pelosi and the DNC did not provide a fair and level playing field in choosing a nominee, I would never vote for obama, nor contribute to any institutional Democratic cause, especially the DNC. I will not enable this kind of behavior in an organization in which I have been a part. I will actively do everything I can to destroy Dean's and Pelosi's standing in that organization. I have been called a racist, a woman hater(??) and an idiot because of my stands. To those who have done that, my little no vote is a further "fuck you". I hope there are many like me to add a little more impact, so you finally start to get it.
Posted by jimbo at June 23, 2008 01:10 PMTurkana, Hillary *suspended* her campaign. Her delegates are still her delegates. Now, if you want the Dems to win this year, the best thing you can do is persuade TIIC of the DNC to allow for a fair and transparent convention in Denver. Urge them to seat FL and MI with full votes and allow Hillary to make her case to the superdelegates. Other candidates have done so with far, far fewer delegates and if the DNC wants to legitimize the arrogant lightweight they have chosen for us, the least it can do is honor Hillary and her 18 million supporters. If Dean et al can't even do that, they won't have earned my vote. If they can't represent me now, they won't represent me later. I will be faced with a Republican party and a new Libertarian Democratic party. That is not what I or many millions like me want. And if we have to reform the party, there is no time like the present. If we concede one nanometer to the thugs who have taken over the party, in four years we will have adjusted and won't have the strength to take the mission on. It shouldn't take another Depression to make the Democrats remember their principles.
I can live with 4 years of divided government. Can Howard Dean?
jimbo, you're a PUMA. You meet all of the qualifications for membership and, yes, our number is legion. We are growing exponentially. The sucker has gone viral.
Posted by riverdaughter at June 23, 2008 01:14 PMI see PUMA as the next step in the realization that a 3rd party is needed. The DNC is no longer interested in being fair to all of its old constituents. Right now the PUMAs might not be a big enough movement to effect change, but their numbers will only grow over time. It is not only about Hillary Clinton and this election.
Posted by Dawn at June 23, 2008 01:14 PM...especially the DNC.
That's fresh. After Hillary signed onto the rules made by the DNC.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 23, 2008 01:15 PMAnthony: If you are so concerned with the doom that is about to befall you during a McCain presidency (I never said I would vote for him, btw), you *do* still have a choice. The nomination is not final until the balloons drop in Denver. You can still persuade the superdelegates to vote for Hillary. If you don't, then it won't be OUR fault if those things happen because we hold our candidates to a high standard. It will be YOURS because you didn't.
And don't condescend to us. We know exactly what we're doing. You just aren't going to like it much. But you'll "get over it".
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that Obama is "unqualified" to be president, he comes pretty close. Iraq is a particular concern.
And you would suggest instead?....
Hillary Clinton? On what basis would you suggest her? Where in her history is there an example of her successfully running a complex operation, navigating a diplomatic minefield of dozens of different interest groups, and creating a consensus solution? Now, Bill Clinton did have a history of building consensus and applied that to the situation in Northern Ireland -- he will probably always be loved in that part of the world for having done so. But a) that situation was not the same challenge as Iraq and b) Hillary is not Bill, she doesn't have the consensus-building history. Worse, like Obama she went to AIPAC, prostrated herself, and threatened the Arab and Persian worlds with "obliteration".
Who else? McCain? No experience leading a large organization, has shown himself to be weak as a leader of smaller organizations (witness his failed tactical military commands and his pathetically-run presidential campaigns). And his total disdain for diplomacy makes him as bad a choice as GWB.
Other Democrats? Edwards? Kucininch? Richardson? A governor of an insultated midwestern state? No one with the right experience. Biden? Has foreign policy cred due to his 1 billion talk show appearances, but does he really know negotiation? Running a large organization?
The point is: if Obama is weak here, so is the rest of the field. Whoever wins will need to bring in leadership to make it happen.
This, by the way, is an argument for Clark as VP under Obama. Clark does have the experience necessary to run this, and as VP he could have the title and delegated authority to make it happen.
Posted by Anonny at June 23, 2008 01:20 PM7 of 6: I'm sorry, where is it in the DNC rulebook where a candidate whose name wasn't on the ballot in MI not only gets the benefit of the doubt and receives not only all of the uncommitted delegates in the state but also some of his opponenets *earned* delegates?
Please. Don't lecture us with the rules argument. The ends do not justify the means.
Posted by riverdaughter at June 23, 2008 01:21 PMConstitutional Rights?
What part of the capitulation on FISA are you still confused about?
This is the second post I've seen about PUMA today, for a fringe movement it sure gets a lot of airplay. For the record, I'm all for PUMA and whatever they feel like they need to do. I'm sure they get really tired of being lectured to about the differences between McCain and Obama. I'm fairly certain they understand those differences, but believe that they have been betrayed by the apparatus of the Democratic Party. I think they certainly have some legitimate complaints there. But their candidate has suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama, so I'm not completely sure what it is they are trying to accomplish other than a protest.
And if that's all they wish to accomplish, I say fair play to them.
Posted by JB64 at June 23, 2008 01:22 PM7 of 6: I'm sorry, where is it in the DNC rulebook where a candidate whose name wasn't on the ballot in MI not only gets the benefit of the doubt and receives not only all of the uncommitted delegates in the state but also some of his opponenets *earned* delegates?
Hey, I was for Hillary getting all the MI delegates. She would have still lost the primary. Get over it.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 23, 2008 01:26 PMBut you'll "get over it".
Perhaps. But if McCain wins the millions of uninsured children and hundreds of thousands who will be killed in his continuation of war might not.
But, you'll have made your point about Hillary's unfair treatment.
Posted by Anonny at June 23, 2008 01:26 PM"Turkana, Hillary *suspended* her campaign. Her delegates are still her delegates. "
She dropped out and endorsed Obama. This reminds me of an exchange from Dumb and Dumber:
Lloyd/PUMAteers: The least you could do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary/Hillary: Not good.
Lloyd/PUMAteers: You mean like one out of a hundred?
Mary/Hillary: More like one out of a million.
Lloyd/PUMAteers: So you're tellin' me there's a chance.
Then again, given that you got banned from Daily Kos for Muslim-baiting and refer to Barack Obama as "the Affirmative Action Candidate" (plagiarizing Rush Limbaugh in the process) I'm guess nothing short of him bleaching his skin would get you to vote for him.
FYI, many PUMAs are not committing to voting for McCain.
Which means some are. Which makes you a "bi-partisan" hate group against Obama. I gotta say, you are Rove's wet dream.
In fact, I urge them to NOT committ to any candidate.
Gosh, that makes it better.
It's better if the DNC recognizes the 18 million of us and gives us a fair and transparent convention where Hillary can make her case to the superdelegates.
Excuse me? Maybe 18 mil voted for Hillary, but that does not mean there are 18 million PUMA people! You maybe have a hundred actual dems on your side, and probably twice as many closet Republicans pretending to be dems! You have no right to claim that you represent 18 million votes. Don't you get it? Hillary isn't going to make her case to the super dels any more, she is supporting Obama.
rd, as a former Hillary defender, I'm sickened by you and your followers. Back in the day, I cheered when you left dKos because the place had become toxic to women in general and Hillary supporters in particular; someone had finally drawn attention to the garbage.
But with this crap, cozying up to Republicans (you don't honestly believe all your membership is from the liberal side, do you?), you've destroyed any moral authority we had then, and any hope of change now. With this insanity, you've given every sexist an excuse to point to when they want to talk about those crazy Hillary supporters, and frankly, I loathe you for that. Between you and Larry Johnson, you've tainted the real Hillary supporters out there, you've undermined the efforts of feminists who tried to point out the misogyny of the primary. And now - long after the primary is done, you've stirred up another round of Hillary bashing and primary infighting that should never happen.
You want to be another Nader? Fine. Knock yourself out if being one of the most hated figures in politics is your bag. Vote for whoever the fuck you want. But don't you dare include me in your "18 million" lie. I'm one of those who actually respect Hillary and hate you for dragging her further into the mud.
And Turkana - I would recommend you delete this entire post. You're giving these people way more attention than they deserve, and as you can see, you just started up the primary fuck shit all over again. TLC is not Fox news, and except for the dead enders like rd, no one wants the animosity to continue.
Goddamn it! I didn't come back for this shit!
Posted by iamcoyote at June 23, 2008 01:29 PMGeek Esq: Then you'd better make sure that Dean allows them a floor vote just like every other candidate's delegation I can remember.
And personally, I could give a rat's @$$ whether you think we're dumb. If you're so worried about the uninsured, you could have voted for Clinton. If you voted for the weakling without a resume, that's on YOUR shoulders, not mine.
'git
Holy crap, IAC and I agree on a subject. Who says unity isn't possible?
Posted by Geek, Esq. at June 23, 2008 01:33 PMiamcoyote: I challenge you to find any post or comment of mine where I specifically say that I plan to vote for McCain. If I can accomplish my goals without doing that, then great! Friends don't let friends vote Republican.
As for getting attention, this baby is viral now. It's out of all of our hands. And the more people know they are not alone, the more the movement will grow. If that makes the Democratic party and the Obama supporters unhappy, good!
What part of the capitulation on FISA are you still confused about?
It totally sucks. It means Obama is the lesser of two evils.
There is a time when it makes sense to take a stand and say "NO MORE" to voting for the lesser of two evils. This is not that time. The Scalito faction has 4 of the 9 votes. 4 years of McCain gives them 6-7 of the 9 votes.
The Scalito faction believes:
* That we are at "war" with radical Islam, although there has been no Declaration of War as required by Article 1.
* That this "war" justifies suspending basic rights such as habeas corpus and the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments.
* That the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts don't actually mean what they say. The Scalito gang would probably approve a Poll Tax.
* That the current weak campaign finance reform laws are unconstituional. That is, while they would happy approve a Sedition Law imprisoning people for disagreeing with the government during war, they would argue that limits on campaign contributions are an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech.
* They also would find that any restrictions on media consolidation to be an abridgement of free press.
* Taken together the last 3 points mean that under a Scalito government: the media would be even more one-sided than during 2002 and 2003; vote supression tactics would be widespread and more severe than since the end of Jim Crow; and corporations could openly buy elections.
You think the above are exaggerations? They are not -- read their dissenting opinions over the past 16 years.
For this reason, this is a time when the right thing to do is vote for the lesser of two evils.
Also, let's not confuse ourselves here and imagine that Hillary, in the same position, would not have capitulated. She's as much a triangulator as Bill and Obama are. As Krugman has documented, neither Clinton nor Obama talked much about progressive issues until Edwards forced them to.
Posted by Anonny at June 23, 2008 01:40 PMAnd personally, I could give a rat's @$$ whether you think we're dumb. If you're so worried about the uninsured, you could have voted for Clinton. If you voted for the weakling without a resume, that's on YOUR shoulders, not mine.
Actually my preference was Edwards, then neutral (when he dropped out), then slightly towards Obama (after his speech on race). But you're saying that because I didn't vote for Clinton the problem is on my shoulders?
Posted by Anonny at June 23, 2008 01:44 PMAn outrageous stupid article today at Salon prompted this open letter response from Ani just posted at MyQuarter. I suggest you read the whole thing...but remember, PUMA members do NOT believe that Obama is qualified to be POTUS. And nothing - nothing - can change that between now and November. Here's an excerpt from Ani's post:
"The number one reason we will not support Senator Obama for President is that he is not qualified for the job.
Surprised? Let’s examine this more closely.
This man has missed over 40% of his votes in the Senate. If one examines the votes he has missed, they actually are politically risky and require moral courage. So far, he has exhibited little.
He voted “present” 130 times in the Illinois State Legislature and voted “wrong” six times, i.e., he said “oops, I accidentally pressed the wrong button” — so either he is incapable of multitasking, or he is dishonest, just making choices for political expediency.
Aah. Thou hast hit it. What are the clues to his actions as nothing more than political expedience and opportunism:
A man who sits in a divisive and racist church for 20 years and lies about his knowledge of the contents of these sermons, then throws the church under the bus when it becomes politically critical for him to do so...."
Posted by CoyoteCreek at June 23, 2008 01:44 PMActually my preference was Edwards, then neutral (when he dropped out), then slightly towards Obama (after his speech on race). But you're saying that because I didn't vote for Clinton the problem is on my shoulders?
That is the PUMA movement in a nutshell--they want Obama to lose so they can inflate their egos by saying "I told you so."
A rogue's gallery of nutjobs, racists, and pathological narcissists.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at June 23, 2008 01:50 PMA rogue's gallery of nutjobs, racists, and pathological narcissists.
It's been an interesting primary -- and I mean that in a bad way.
I'm pretty cynical, which is probably to be expected after the last 8 years. But one of the pet illusions I'd held on to was that the left, while we have our nutjobs too, was on the whole far more rational and open-minded than the right.
After 6 months of reading statements from the Obama and H. Clinton fringe supporters I am now free of that mistaken notion. The cherry picking of facts and the cutting-and-pasting of talking points is as bad as what Muck and company do on any of the climate change threads. The rhetoric is infused with double standards and reverse logic.
I'll say this -- so far the rhetoric hasn't fallen down to the depths of, say, LGF -- eliminationist talk is still very rare among the rabid supporters of the two candidates. So, perhaps we still have some standards.
Posted by Anonny at June 23, 2008 01:58 PMI challenge you to find any post or comment of mine where I specifically say that I plan to vote for McCain.
Here you go riverdaughter:
You are mistaken. They simply have not seen enough resistence. And as a woman Obama's age, I have nothing to look forward to with him in power. His election may have consequences for the careers of every American woman. It is my responsibility to work as hard as I can to prevent Obama's nomination. In truth, I would fare better under McCain, given my social status and income. As long as I work for downticket Democrats, I can ride out four years of McCain. But an Obama presidency will set women back 40 years. We need at least one party to fight for our civil rights and equality. With Obama, we lose that while preserving the illusion of Roe v Wade.So, there you have it. It's Hillary or no one. I will absolutely not ever vote for Obama. He is inextricably tied to this version of the party and it is my intention to disempower both in any way possible short of voting for the Republican. But if it comes to that, well, so be it.
Posted by riverdaughter at May 31, 2008 06:42 PM
By the way coyote, have I told you lately that you are awesome.
Let's not forget that some of the people behind the PUMA movement (such as it is) are really just plain old racists.
Posted by NR at June 23, 2008 02:13 PMTurkana,
Excellent post; you may not be dead on, but you're hitting the target.
I've got a minor personal discrepancy with the intellectual and moral highground you assume when talking to or about Obama supporters.
"During the primaries, I saw Clinton supporters as generally more issues-based than were most Obama supporters. I have been open about that fact that I found a disturbing level of personality cult behind the Obama movement, which resulted in an even more disturbing dishonesty and misogyny in how these cultists attacked Clinton."
I cannot argue that this is not what you saw, but you cannot tell me you weren't standing on Clinton's side of the fence. The Democratic election can be a nasty process, and I cannot help but say I had my unfavorable views about a good chunk of the Clinton supporter base.
I have a large number of friends and co-workers who support Obama, and an equally large amount who supported Hillary as well. Being on the enlisted side of the US Army, our involvement with politics, as frowned-upon as it is by the big-wigs, is unfortunately life or death for us. Every soldier I know who is supporting a Democrat is EXTREMELY issues based, perspicaciously involved in the political process, and ultimately has their eyes on the Big Prize (Dem in Office.) This cultist behavior you've categorized as a side effect of supporting Obama is severely disingenuous and rudimentary. Whereas I have seen the same behavior from a solid amount of Clinton supporters, It is simply just the ugly side of politics. There will always be the fanatical, the frantic, and the foolish. The idea that another democrat is the enemy is irresponsible (especially in an election as important as this). However, the ability to accept the lewd actions of those standing behind you is a bit more complicated than just pointing a finger at those across the way who are pointing right back at you.
The put it simply, I've had a hard time seeing this "cultish behavior" being an Obama supporter myself, but I know it exists. It existed/exists within the Hillary support base as well, but you seem to be having a hard time with accepting that.
Politics is one of those things you keep away from first dates and family gatherings for a reason. It gets fucking nasty. What you must realize, before you demonize and delegitimize anyone, is that we are and have always been on the same team. Clinton and Obama are two of the MOST qualified and reasonable candidates the Democratic Party has had in 40 years, and when it came time to endorse, it purely came down to personal preference on the smaller issues. Obama supporters care just as much as Clinton supporters. Obama supporters portray cultish behavior just as much as Clinton supporters. The only unavoidable difference between the two of us, is whether or not our candidate won.
Once again, excellent post, and I cannot help but say I am impressed with your standpoint on the current election issues. Thank you.
Posted by Chris at June 23, 2008 02:19 PMWhere in her history is there an example of her successfully running a complex operation, navigating a diplomatic minefield of dozens of different interest groups, and creating a consensus solution?
Her campaign. Nuff said.
I have been open about that fact that I found a disturbing level of personality cult behind the Obama movement, which resulted in an even more disturbing dishonesty and misogyny in how these cultists attacked Clinton.
Some statements are so stupid as to beggar all repsonses...except one: Screw you you ass clown shill for a failed candidate.
Most Clinton supporters believed themselves pragmatics, while some viewed Obama supporters as fantacists.
While in reality the reverse was true.
PUMA (party unity my ass) does speak to a third party. Something akin to Roosevelt's Bull Moose party. That was a winner! To be honest, what a bunch of post menopausal women do is really not going to influence anyone. But I do suggest some action figures PUMA can use to sell their cause. The "Hot Flash" PUMA action figure where you can press her belly and watch her face turn red while little beads of perspiration appear on her forehead. The "Facial Hair" PUMA action figure where you can watch her hormone levels fluctuate and whiskers grow (comes with tiny tweezers). And the always popular "Post Menopausal" PUMA action figure that pees on herself when she sneezes and forgets why she supported a candidate in the first place. All of them come with "Hillary or Death!" protest signs.
Well, I never considered myself affiliated with the PUMA movement or cause and still don't but whatever...as a matter of fact before the nomination voting was officially completed it was the RFK -she wants Obama assassinated crapola that sent me into the withhold my vote for Obama camp...before PUMA was even labeled.
That said, I'm in a pretty safe blue state that most certainly will go Obama's way so withholding my money, volunteering and vote won't impact his winning here...and I'd like to be convinced that he is qualified (although his stances on many issues are similar to Clinton's, I'm not so certain he's actually talented enough to enact them and I'm less than convinced he won't drift further to the right (hello Fisa) on some key issues (healthcare, social security, ending the war in Iraq)).
Now as I've said in previous comments, there's a long time between now and November for him and the democratic party leadership to actually earn my vote, support, and money back....and I really am keeping an open mind on it. I've said all along I'd never ever vote for McSame or the republican candidate..but I'm not going to enable the democratic party anymore either by just blindly giving them my money, support, and lastly my vote vote in hopes that they'll do the right thing like I did in 2006-(first time I voted straight dem ticket). I've been waiting for them to actually be the opposition party since that election and to hold the Mr. 28% and current war criminal party accountable for the giant mess we're in ...and all I've seen in return are a pile of some sternly worded letters and a continuation/enabling/and now even retroactive legalization of many failed Buscho policies/lawbreaking. So until their enabling behavior changes, I don't see how my blind allegiance, support, vote (like I gave them in 2006)and implicit approval of them just because they have a D next to their name on the ballot will get them to stop acting like or enabling the republican party.
Posted by emal at June 23, 2008 02:23 PM
"To be honest, what a bunch of post menopausal women do is really not going to influence anyone. But I do suggest some action figures PUMA can use to sell their cause. The "Hot Flash" PUMA action figure where you can press her belly and watch her face turn red while little beads of perspiration appear on her forehead. The "Facial Hair" PUMA action figure where you can watch her hormone levels fluctuate and whiskers grow (comes with tiny tweezers). And the always popular "Post Menopausal" PUMA action figure that pees on herself when she sneezes and forgets why she supported a candidate in the first place. "
You. fucking. suck.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at June 23, 2008 02:24 PMThanks, SoS. The reason I stopped going to the rd's site was the chatting up of McCain as a viable alternative to Obama. Once that crap starts, you've abdicated all right to a welcome in Democratic circles. You want to make a sour grapes movement, go ahead. But you fucking STOP pretending it's about Hillary, and STOP trashing her good name because you can't get over your disappointment that politics is politics. God, this shit makes me angry.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 23, 2008 02:25 PMYou. fucking. suck.
He's a Republican ratfucker trying to make Obama supporters look bad. Ignore him.
Posted by NR at June 23, 2008 02:27 PM"but if you cared about Hillary Clinton's issues, you have to prefer Obama to McCain. It's not about you or your anger or your hurt. It's about the future of our planet. It's about that war in Iraq, and the possibility of a war in Iran. It's about taking steps forward on health care and the economy and education and energy policy and everything else, or taking steps backwards, if at all. It's still about the issues. To those that cared about the issues, in the first place."
Turkana - you're one of my favorite political bloggers, and I'm not a PUMA but am a disgruntled Clinton supporter. I was all for this post until you started lecturing people on how they should vote there at the end.
I wish more people would admit that millions of Americans DO NOT vote on the issues. Voting is an irrational phenomenon, and it's virtually impossible to separate out issues of identification, bias, and context from the "rational" issues like healthcare, jobs, etc.
I feel like I'm in a similar bind here - my pro-Clinton website's traffic has dropped off demonstrably, in part because I have emerged as an unenthusiastic Obama supporter who bashes McCain because he's not the solution. But I think this election season lecturing posture for those who won't get in line is hugely problematic.
My impression is that for many of these voters who don't plan to support Obama, this primary is just the final straw of a long, slow pile-up of disappointments and betrayals from the Democratic Party, and in shocking, flamingly sexist fashion. Seriously, if these voters believe that the Party has betrayed them, and that they cannot in good conscience support such a system anymore, then instructing them of how they should be thinking only further insults their analysis of their OWN situations and their agency in their attempts to change their situation.
The fact is that our world is a mess right now, and neither McCain nor Obama (and maybe not Clinton either) is really going to pull us out of it anytime soon. Obama always tells us change comes from the ground up; well, it also happens outside the system, and by pressing on the system for change. As far as I'm concerned, this energy and mobilization to register dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party is a good thing.
Voting for McCain - yes, that worries me. But viral, publicized mobilization against Party elites? There's room for that in my playbook alongside those planning to vote for Obama as their preferred attempt to change the status quo.
Posted by Hillary1000 at June 23, 2008 02:31 PMHey Turkana -
I appreciate you must have little to post about lately beyond noting the bloom is off the Obama-rose or the gild is off the Obama -lily etc, but giving oxygen to this silliness is not a great idea imo.
The problem is that there is a mixture in that PUMA thing of people who just want the attention to continue to be on them, people who sincerely see a series of injustices that have occured and want to punish someone for it (I agree, but I am smarter about who I think that is), and nutballs who want to push McCain. You cant tell the smarties from the dumb dumbs from the crazies on anonymous chat boards so you are best letting time go by. The people who really want to do the work to resolve some of the filth will stick around the party and kick some ass. Like Hillary's real money people who dont feel like playing party-cakes with Obama just yet.
The nuts and malevolents are not Hillary supporters or Obama supporters - they are just internet cowards full of key-rage and if ignored will go back to chewing off their toenails with their teeth after awhile and we'll start all over again.
imo, of course. :-)
Posted by the young Judith at June 23, 2008 02:32 PMP-dip - Always ready with the misogynistic spew.
See, you goddamn PUMA shits. This is what you've done to all Hillary supporters. You've made it okay for assholes to trash all of us. Fuck off and get a life.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 23, 2008 02:33 PMI'd also like to add that if Puma's and angry Clinton supporters more generally are noticeable and require overtures from the Party and Obama to win over their votes in November, why hasn't that happened or when is it going to happen? If PUMA's are so irrational, why is the Party doing what seems like an equally irrational position of digging in their heels and not reaching out to these voters?
Or have they and Obama has and I've just missed it? Please enlighten me!
Posted by Hillary1000 at June 23, 2008 02:37 PMSee, you goddamn PUMA shits. This is what you've done to all Hillary supporters. You've made it okay for assholes to trash all of us. Fuck off and get a life.
They have a symbiotic relationship. Trolls often do.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at June 23, 2008 02:43 PMYou Just Don't Get It:
P.U.M.A. is not a movement to reinstate HRC as her party's nominee for the Presidency; that ship has sailed. P.U.M.A. is instead, the long overdue realization that the Democratic Party is irrelevant. Their horrendously weak Congressional leadership lacks the spine, will, leadership, and commitment to represent the most fundamental core Democratic principals, and by extrapolation, their constituentcy. Blue Dog Democrats(?) - call them what they are: Republicans. Howard Dean and DNC - puhlease....they're a satellite operation of Obama, Inc.
To loyal Democrats and Obama supporters,you'd better pray that the Dems do pickup significant majorities in the House and Senate in November. It's the only way in which they can thwart the McCain Administration - if, of course, they have the spine to quit whining and do their jobs.
Posted by Bruce at June 23, 2008 02:44 PMHillary1000 - Obama was reaching out to working women just today:
Having waited a suitable time after Clinton's withdrawal to avoid the appearance of crudeness, Obama makes the case for why women should vote for him, and against McCain, with as much detail as I've seen in the past.
Interestingly, the talk -- to a "working women"-themed event in New Mexico, stays entirely on the economic issues, and doesn't touch abortion rights or other hot buttons.
Instead, he talks about fair pay, day care, and other workplace issues that were at the core of Clinton's campaign.
Here's a link to his complete statement.
Posted by NR at June 23, 2008 02:44 PMNR - jinx. I just read that. Good speech.
But I'm looking for more stuff, like personal meetings. If McCain can get these folks on a conference call, surely Obama et al. can too?
Posted by Hillary1000 at June 23, 2008 02:48 PMoh come on iamcoyote - like any of these dorkheads need an excuse to spew their key-rage. :-)
Posted by the young Judith at June 23, 2008 02:50 PM
rd,
everyone "suspends" their campaigns. it's technical. she supports obama. she's not contesting the convention.
Posted by Turkana at June 23, 2008 02:50 PMPersonally, I think the DNC knows it fucked up this year. I expect big changes to come in the future. They certainly don't need PUMA to know they fucked up.
On most every issue, even a GOP lite Dem is better than a 'repuke'.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 23, 2008 02:50 PM
oh Bruce - shed ep. If there is anything irrelevant it is that dumbass acronym. Who made that dopey thing up? And how much likker was in em when s/he did? :-)
course, that new Obama sign is freakin dumb too and he paid A LOT for it. :-)
Posted by the young Judith at June 23, 2008 02:53 PMoh come on iamcoyote - like any of these dorkheads need an excuse to spew their key-rage. :-)
Obviously, but why give them ammunition?
P.U.M.A. is not a movement to reinstate HRC as her party's nominee for the Presidency; that ship has sailed.
Then someone needs to tell riverdaughter, because she's still spouting stuff about Hillary presenting her case to delegates up above.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 23, 2008 03:00 PMPersonally, I think the DNC knows it fucked up this year. I expect big changes to come in the future. They certainly don't need PUMA to know they fucked up. ""
I really hope that is true. I hope people get fired.
Posted by the young Judith at June 23, 2008 03:01 PMcourse, that new Obama sign is freakin dumb too and he paid A LOT for it.
I said somewhere else that it looks like one o' them tacky Wedgewood plates sold by the Franklin Mint. Who's dumb idea was that?
Posted by iamcoyote at June 23, 2008 03:02 PMiamcoyote - I am just saying that the puking is what a puker does - they dont need an excuse.
Other than that, I think you made some extremely valid, rational points and I agree.
I dont loath RD though.
Um the cultish behavior, I see it from both sides still...heck just yesterday look at the grief that paradox took because he wasn't sporting an Obama shirt, glasses, and smiling while humping his Obama sign he put up on his property. The grief from both sides he took on that action was unnecessary. The cultish behavior still exist throughout and I'm sure some of it is fueled by trolls who get a kick out of fostering divisiveness within the democratic party. But even without it, it still doesn't excuse the Democratic party's/leadership's spineless behavior as of late...not.at.all.
Posted by emal at June 23, 2008 03:05 PMcourse, that new Obama sign is freakin dumb too and he paid A LOT for it.
I said somewhere else that it looks like one o' them tacky Wedgewood plates sold by the Franklin Mint. Who's dumb idea was that?
now iamcoyote, that is frakkin funny! I want one of those dolls they sell!
Um the cultish behavior, I see it from both sides still...heck just yesterday look at the grief that paradox took because he wasn't sporting an Obama shirt, glasses, and smiling while humping his Obama sign he put up on his property.
To be fair, that was just that one lunatic, and he's been banned. Other than that, the thread was pretty civil, I thought.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 23, 2008 03:11 PM...because he wasn't sporting an Obama shirt, glasses, and smiling while humping his Obama sign he put up on his property.
That was funny emal.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 23, 2008 03:13 PM"Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan is weak and incomplete."
Wrong, Turkana. Obama's plan is not a withdrawal plan, it is a plan to reconfigure the occupation.
Posted by Shirin at June 23, 2008 03:55 PMIf McCain is President and the Obama party wins the House and Senate, McCain will effectively be powerless to cause any harm.
Now, if Obama were President (as ludicrous as that sounds) and the Obama party wins the House and Senate, then we're f'ed because there will be no stopping Obama from doing whatever the hell he damn well pleases.
That thought doesn't frighten you? Better get your head checked then.
Posted by OxyCon at June 23, 2008 03:57 PMNow, if Obama were President (as ludicrous as that sounds) and the Obama party wins the House and Senate, then we're f'ed because there will be no stopping Obama from doing whatever the hell he damn well pleases.
That thought doesn't frighten you? Better get your head checked then.
Yeah, fair pay for women and badly-needed education reform is so scary.
Better trolls, please.
Posted by NR at June 23, 2008 04:08 PM"If McCain is President and the Obama party wins the House and Senate, McCain will effectively be powerless to cause any harm."
You mean like the way the current House and Senate are being soooooo effective in preventing Bush from causing harm?
Yeah, right!
Posted by Shirin at June 23, 2008 04:09 PMOxycon;
I think you need some Oxygen. Your head is in the sand.
Posted by suresh at June 23, 2008 04:14 PMObama's chucked the "presidential seal" sign. We won't see it again except for reruns. What a can you opened Turkana? Just trying to gather the sheep after the FISA and Funding storms I guess.
There's still Dodd and Countrywide to talk about.
Unity.....sure Ok, whatever you say.
Bagley pass the popcorn.
Posted by peter at June 23, 2008 04:24 PMPeter;
Get ready for another terrorist attack so that McCain can get 'ADVANTAGE"
You pathetic Neo-Cons REPUBS.
Posted by suresh at June 23, 2008 04:30 PMpeter commits the cardinal sin of being dull.
Wow, t appears as though that I am late to the party!
Would someone please explain what "PUMA" means.
Thanks.
Posted by Bagley at June 23, 2008 05:09 PMAll you obama clowns, with your raging childness, I and many more like me won't vote for obama. We will work very hard to find all who are of the same bent, and make sure they also won't vote for barry ballless. Great job, boys and girls.
Posted by jimbo at June 23, 2008 05:29 PM…..the PUMA phenomenon represents exactly what some Clinton supporters criticized some Obama supporters for being part of- a cult….What nonsense. If the party nominee won't stand for the principles that some voters regard as highly important, those voters should go to a third party that answers to their concerns. I am not willing to jettison long held principles just because the Party does. I remember a president who said "a rising tide lifts all boats." Now, we have a presidential candidate who mocks another candidate's words that supported the poor. Now we have a presidential candidate who thinks the House FISA bill is just fine. I don't. Now we have a presidential candidate who thinks that NAFTA is just fine. I don't. Now we have a presidential candidate who thinks that Campaign Finance Reform is meaningless. I don't. Now we have a presidential candidate who thinks that universal health care should leave millions uncovered. I don't. Now we have a presidential candidate who thinks that maybe we could withdraw from Iraq in sixteen months. I want out now. I am not interested in a candidate who tells me to get over it. I want a candidate who says your concerns are my concerns
The facts are the attacks were started by Clinton folks….sureshActually, the attacks were started by Obama after he lost New Hampshire and played the race card to win South Carolina.
…I'm sickened by you and your followers…..iamcoyote 01:29 PMI'm sickened by the continued bullying by Obama's people.
…As noted earlier, progressives have launched a fierce attack on Paula Abeles -- the prominent Clinton supporter who now prefers McCain to Obama. See here, for example. …The O-Borg published her private contact information. As a result, she and members of her family have received death threats….
….To be honest, what a bunch of post menopausal women do is really not going to influence anyone…. phidipides 02:19 PMWhat a stupid misogynistic comment and indicative of your inability to address Obama's flips on important issues. How do you like his FISA reversal?
Obama was reaching out to working women just today…NR 02:44 PMObama has a history of fine talk but not the matching deeds. Posted by Mike at June 23, 2008 05:29 PM
I like this fellow "Mike."
But again, what is PUMA?
Posted by Bagley at June 23, 2008 05:35 PMMike - A brief look at Cannonfire was all it took to convince me that anyone who links there is a complete nutjob and not to be taken the least bit seriously. So thanks for saving me the (futile) effort of trying to have a constructive discussion with you.
Posted by NR at June 23, 2008 05:46 PMRiverdaughter, vote for whoever you please, just get one thing straight, we have our candidate, Obama won more delegates fair and square, he was a better candidate and out organized Clinton. You have no power over anyone and just seem bitter to me. You are not owed anything, its not about you or your ego. Please take your bitterness and go away.
Posted by Joe at June 23, 2008 05:48 PMI do suppose -- at this point -- that PUMA is not an acronym, but simply a mechanism designed to forment argument between Leftists.
Peter, here, have some popcorn.
Posted by Bagley at June 23, 2008 05:55 PMJoe, actually you strike me as kinda sad. What up up with the people who cant just be happy their pick won? Why the continued need to name call? Unless it always was about name calling in the first place. Which is what I suspect it is all about now for quite a few suffering from key-rage.
Posted by the young Judith at June 23, 2008 05:57 PMPUMA - great logical step for ex-DNC folks.
Nice job Riverdaughter.
But again, what is PUMA?
The acronym for Party Unity My Ass. Just search "clinton puma", otherwise you get cats....uhhh, felines....uh, cougars! Yeah, that's it! Non-misogynistic and neutrally phrased cougars. It's a small and shrinking group of people still pissed because Hillary couldn't steal the nomination regardless of the manipulation, lies, half-truths, and lack of ethics in her campaign. Think of them as republi-cons who would vote for the reanimated corpse of Ray-Gun over McOld after lining up to kiss Ray-Gun's rotted ass. But I bet the zombie Ray-Gun lovers would at least have donated to his fetid campaign...if he were reanimated, that is.
You. fucking. suck.
Let me see. Your brain slipped out of neutral and was actually doing something and this was the best you could come up with. Go figure?
He's a Republican ratfucker trying to make Obama supporters look bad. Ignore him.
You bet. You Muslim-o-fascist black man loving gay marriage supporting liberal Obameranians must be stopped at all costs!! (you don't come round these parts often, pilgrim, do ya?)
P-dip - Always ready with the misogynistic spew.
Damn, but don't it make people think! And if you read closely enough you'll see there is not a drop of misogyny to it.
BTW: Those descriptions for the action figures came from my 79 year-old mother with minor modification by myself. She was rolling on the floor with laughter when I got them. They come from a newspaper column written by a brilliant woman in a nursing home who is locked in a tragically disabled old body. All of her columns are quite humorous and about what it's like to be a woman, old, and infirm. She is a real treat, and funny as all get out!
Posted by phidipides at June 23, 2008 06:16 PMLive and let live used to be a liberal motto.
Posted by Sharon at June 23, 2008 06:24 PMp-dip, and in the right context, it's an insult. Of course you knew that. It's why you put it out there.
I see you've sent the teabagger out to find out how he can donate to these idiots. I have no doubt they'll have wingnut welfare in no time. Buncha brain dead twits.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 23, 2008 06:26 PMLive and let live used to be a liberal motto.
Wait, that's the libertarians, isn't it? Liberal's motto is - "We're on the side of right, we finally have a chance, how can we fuck this up?"
Posted by iamcoyote at June 23, 2008 06:29 PMIf McCain is President and the Obama party wins the House and Senate, McCain will effectively be powerless to cause any harm.
Except for exec orders, control of the military, destruction of all government agencies, and appointment of judges, you're right.
Duh.
Look, the Spineless-ocrats have capitulated to every one of the four Scalito Judges. The last SCOTUS nominee to be blocked was in 1987.
Now, if Obama were President (as ludicrous as that sounds) and the Obama party wins the House and Senate, then we're f'ed because there will be no stopping Obama from doing whatever the hell he damn well pleases.
Just like Jimmy Carter got whatever he wanted passed in his 4 years and Bill Clinton got everything he wanted passed in his first 2 years. Yeah right.
Ok, let me spell it out for you: Republicans are authoritarian followers by nature. So, when they get a slim majority in Congress they slavishly do whatever their leader tells them. Trying to lead Democrats, OTOH, is like the proverbial herding of cats. Pelosi, O'Neill, et al have had a larger majority in the House than Gingrigh or Hassert ever dreamed of, but they couldn't keep their flocks intact under any circumstances.
Republicans remind me of Germans (no, I'm not trying to tempt Godwin here) when I lived in Germany. Every foreigner I knew made the same observation: when 2 Germans meet in a business setting there is this initial intense negotiation that goes one until one asserts dominance and the other meekly submits. It's obvious to outsiders, and very imbedded in the culture. There is a strong cultural need for ORDER and HIERARCHY. Americans who flock to the Republican Party have the same need -- to lead or be led. Democrats, OTOH, are all over the place.
Posted by Anonny at June 23, 2008 06:59 PMhmm, anonny. I always thought it was more about the GOP being the party of the haves who want to keep it from the thems, and the Democrats being the "thems".
Posted by the young Judith at June 23, 2008 07:16 PM
I always thought it was more about the GOP being the party of the haves who want to keep it from the thems, and the Democrats being the "thems".
Probably something to that, but it doesn't explain why so many "have nots" identify with the Republicans.
Racism is a factor, but only part of it. Look up "Authoritarian Followers" -- there is a sociological concept that explains their behavior.
Posted by Anonny at June 23, 2008 08:12 PMThe people you think of as have nots think of themselves as haves.
We always err when we think that people think as we do. Americans do it when we look at other countries, and Liberals do it when we look at other Americans. It is a fatal mistake we make, imo.
The authority thingie could just as easily be a cooperation thingie, btw.
Posted by the young Judith at June 23, 2008 08:42 PM"Please take your bitterness and go away."
That's the plan. We are also taking our votes.
Buh-bye now!
Buh-bye now!
Does this mean you're finally leaving? You won't be back in the next one of these threads with more attention whoring? Really?
Somehow I doubt we're so lucky.
Posted by NR at June 23, 2008 11:39 PMThis IS issue-based. The issue is honest elections.
As a Democrat, there was nothing I could do to protest when Republicans stole and cheated on election day, disenfranchised, played dirty.
But I will be hanged if I will just shut up and go along when it's "my" party doing it.
I will not be part of any party that steals or rigs elections.
Sorry if that means we're stuck with a bad guy for Pres for four years - but that is not a choice I made, it is a choice the party made when it misbehaved, and I won't be blackmailed into pretending it isn't a big deal. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and I won't vote for a candidate who won by overturning a certified election - because that would be tantamount to suggesting that this behavior is forgivable, and it isn't. If we do nothing, it will become standard election behavior, and I won't accept that. I refuse to accept that.
Party Unity that is one side behaving badly and the other side forgiving and justifying - that is not acceptable. That's an abusive relationship, and the worst thing you can do in an abusive relationship is be an enabler.
And, anyway, honestly, I think this bad guy plus a Dem congress would be a lot better than a bad guy who is (D) (in name but not principle) with no check on him in Congress (which would probably mean losing congress at the half-point anyway). But then, MY issues aren't going to be addressed by the Democrats no matter who wins - we're under the bus. (As will all of you be before this is through, I bet.)
Principles before party. It's what the Republicans should have done, to spare us BUSH.
Posted by anony at June 24, 2008 03:36 AMRalph? Is that you?
Posted by iamcoyote at June 24, 2008 05:09 AMhonest elections?
That's so last century.
When my party became an any-means-to-an-end party, it became....not-my-party.
Hey, I was for Hillary getting all the MI delegates. She would have still lost the primary. Get over it.
Way to entirely miss the point.
The point is NOT that she would still "lose" if the RBC had not invented new rules to award Obama delegates and votes that belonged to Hillary as well as delegates and votes he did not earn. (How can you honestly earn votes when you're not on the ballot?)
The point is that they did this without following any existing rule. It was exactly like the 2000 Selection by the SCOTUS - unprecedented, unfair, not based on rules or laws, and totally corrupt. They just took votes and delegates that did not belong to them and GAVE them to him. They reached this so-called "compromise" behind closed doors.
The outcome is not the important thing here. It's the process, and the process was corrupt. It goes against everything the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for.
The DNC is corrupt. Period. I will not support a corrupt party. Period.
And don't tell me to get over it. I'm still not over 2000, and nor should anyone be who truly cares about fair elections and voter enfranchisement. It's bad enough when Republicans do it, but when my own party does it? It's no longer my party.
Posted by echinopsia at June 24, 2008 08:51 AMThe point is NOT that she would still "lose" if the RBC had not invented new rules to award Obama delegates and votes that belonged to Hillary as well as delegates and votes he did not earn.
No one earned any delegates from Michigan. Michigan held an illegitimate primary which awarded no delegates.
The state party came up with a plan to seat their delegation, and that plan gave delegates to both Clinton and Obama. Since neither of them had earned any delegates from Michigan, they were both awarded delegates they didn't earn.
Just because you didn't like the result, does not make the process corrupt.
Posted by NR at June 24, 2008 09:31 AMAnyone now trying to claim that a McCain presidency would be acceptable or tolerable or in any way preferable to an Obama presidency is either more dishonest than the most dishonest Clinton haters, or so blinded by anger as to be irrational.
A shit sandwich is a shit sandwich. I think anyone who would vote for either candidate is dishonest and irrational.
As I said here:
I believe it is obvious that the 'lesser of two odious,' regardless of the "team" you're rooting for, remains odious. I think the obvious, and sad, truth is, but for the occasional maverick that comes in under the radar, until the straight-and-narrow is routinely enforced by the voters, odious is all we will receive. And until people say "I'm voting for the best, regardless of the perceived futility, not the least-worst" we're going to have government full of quislings. After all, the costs of betrayal are too small compared to the rewards of power when elections are limited to a false-choice of two "electable" candidates.
See, I believe until REAL change is demanded, and enforced, we will just get the Quisling-of-choice paying lip-service to our reasonable cause of a just and fair government FOR THE PEOPLE while upholding Corporate interests.
So, when I vote this year, it's not going to be out FEAR MONGERING, or CHILDISH ATTEMPTS TO SHAME or BE PART OF THE "Cool Kids" which the Democrats are using now, like the Republicans used against Kerry in 2004. It's going to be because, even if my candidate inevitably looses, it will because he or she is the best candidate for the job and trys to uphold the princpals on which our country was allegedly (but not really) founded. Unlike the Demopublicans that run the show.
Posted by Moses at June 24, 2008 10:35 AMPUMAs want to vote for McSame or just sit out the election? Fine, you'll have blood on your hands just like the right-wingers and the pants pissing Democrats who gave King George the green light for war.
Is Obama the perfect candidate? Can he deliver all of the change he is advocating? No, but he's much better than the alternative: Bush's Third Term
Posted by Gay Veteran at June 24, 2008 11:00 AM
On most every issue, even a GOP lite Dem is better than a 'repuke'.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 23, 2008 02:50 PM
------------------------------
I came into the Democratic party with Bill Clinton. If it's going to move right with Obama's Joshua Generation outreach to evangelicals, if he's going to change the platform with his openly (now) free trade, his Reagan economic advisors, etc, etc. then I might as well vote for an (R) if they move back to the center. (For God sake, look at O's health care plan).
Look at his vote for the Cheney energy plan. McCain voted against it. To push this guy when you don't know where he's going is dangerous for the soul of the party.
He's also still the PRESUMPTIVE nominee, no matter how much Turkana doesn't want to believe it.
Posted by jmac at June 24, 2008 12:21 PMI came into the Democratic party with Bill Clinton.
He's the biggest GOP lite Dem there is!
Posted by Seven of Six at June 24, 2008 01:33 PMPUMAs want to vote for McSame or just sit out the election? Fine, you'll have blood on your hands just like the right-wingers and the pants pissing Democrats who gave King George the green light for war.
I am so sick of this kind of fucked up rant. I didnt like it when Riverdaughter came here and said she would blame Obama supporters if someone she knows dies in Iraq, and I dont like it when you write this shit either.
Grow up all you blame bratz.
NOBODY IS RUSHING US OUT OF IRAQ UNTIL THE OIL IS SECURE!!!
Posted by the young Judith at June 24, 2008 01:45 PMTurkana, your notion of Obama-as-cult-of-personality, and of Obama supporters as cult followers, is so entrenched that nothing is ever going to shake it. Nobody, in your view, ever looked the candidates over and made a rational decision to support Obama; instead, those of us who supported him were "deluded by Obama's hope & change schtick". And on and on and on. And now your criticism of the PUMA phenomenon even relies on the same Obama-cult-of-personality framing as a point of comparison.
Oh, it's so simple: just define whatever you dislike as "cultish", and it's immediately beyond the pale of rational discourse. If it's "cultish", you can just dismiss it out of hand. How entirely convenient.
Turkana, guess what? Barack Obama puts his pants on one leg at a time, too. Can you now quit pretending that that fact is a stunning revelation and instead recognize it as mundane? As a truism? And can you further recognize that your criticism of PUMA is nothing but a lengthy exposition of the lesser-of-two-evils thesis...and is unlikely to convince anyone truly committed to PUMA?
Your TLC colleagues, especially Mr. Soto, seem to have moved past the Obama-bashing campaign rhetoric and moved on to the issues of the day (although I wonder what surprises eriposte has in store). I hope you can do the same. Because right now, at the same time that you're criticizing the PUMA movement because "[i]t's not about you or your anger or your hurt," you are continuing to wallow in your anger and hurt.
Posted by joel dan walls at June 24, 2008 02:07 PMAt this point, I'd say everyone's still wallowing in their anger and hurt. Here's this stupid ass post with up to 100 comments of people whining about their goddamn feelings.
Wanna know why nothing's being done by the politicians? Have you guessed yet why the tv talking heads keep talking about Britney's lack of underwear and Obama's lapel pin? Take a look at this page. Go ahead, scroll down, scroll up, count the comments on each post.
I suppose it was inevitable. The blogosphere has left reality-based behind and is now nothing more than a "reality show." Howz that for progress? We've created our own bread and circus, folks.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 24, 2008 02:36 PMhey iamcoyote - quite a few of the comments are yours. Are you swinging on a rope or riding an elephant cause what you mock you are part of.
hA!
Like ya anyway.
Posted by the young Judith at June 24, 2008 03:30 PMBill Clinton was center LEFT. Obama is center right on issues I don't want to be center right on.
The country is center whether you want to believe it or not. Most of us are in the middle and willing to compromise on issues. But I'm not compromising on a party that stopped a democratic process to cram a candidate down my throat.
Hence, PUMA
Posted by jmac at June 24, 2008 03:57 PMjmac - okay. I am pretty sure everybody's got it now.
Posted by the young Judith at June 24, 2008 04:24 PMjmac - okay. I am pretty sure everybody's got it now.
I get a real kick out of these people who say that absolutely, they're leaving, they hate us and they're not going to associate with us any more under any circumstances whatsoever! Not ever!!!!
And then they're back in the next post, talking about how absolutely, they're leaving, they hate us and they're never going to associate with us again, and they really mean it this time!!!!!
All they are is a bunch of drama queens.
Posted by NR at June 24, 2008 04:32 PMWow! THis party is still going on!
I need to make more popcorn.
P.S. Thanks, phidipides.
Posted by Bagley at June 24, 2008 04:37 PMone hundred, whew!
Posted by Seven of Six at June 24, 2008 05:00 PMBill Clinton was center LEFT.
Think what you want, the way he cozied up to big corp certainly didn't reflect him being left at all.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 24, 2008 05:02 PMyoung Judith, yes, I include myself. That's why I said "we."
Posted by iamcoyote at June 24, 2008 06:09 PMah, iamcoyote - you are right. I bow my head in utmost shame that I missed you including yourself. Perhaps you should have started and ended there - though I thought circuses were supposed to be fun? I always enjoyed them as a kid - even the clowns.
I think I mistook you for someone else on here - dont remeber the name - who was witty and fun. All you do is complain that things arent up to your standards. Gets old.
I visited to read and engage with Turkana anyway - which is always pleasant.
see ya
Posted by the young Judith at June 24, 2008 06:32 PMAll you do is complain that things arent up to your standards.
??
Posted by iamcoyote at June 24, 2008 08:32 PMPUMA?
Here we go again! Folks this is democracy...this is how it works! It sure as hell isnt pretty but it is the best experiment around. The Democratic party has never been perfect. You disagree with what has happened in the primaries because your candidate lost. I for won dont give a shit if you vote for McInsane or not! Nor do I care that you sorry asses stay home and don't vote. If that is the case you should crawl back into your holes and STFU! We dont need to hear from you!
Folks this is democracy...
...STFU! We dont need to hear from you!
Hmm, the neo-Democratic way?
Posted by Sharon at June 24, 2008 08:51 PMRE: Obama supporters' cultishness vs. Hillary supporters' alleged cultishness
How can anyone alive watch the famed "We are the Ones" video of Jessica Alba and other attractive media people nodding and intoning Oh-bah-mah like a mantra, interspersed with their starry-eyed notions of how Obama will be OUR president, will keep my unborn baby safe, will save the earth - and NOT see the cult implications? Maybe it's more apparent if you watch with the sound off, but I challenge anyone here to come up with something similar on the Hillary campaign.
I bet that if you can't, someone will say that just means she's not as inspirational. Riiiight.
(Yes, I realize that will.i.am's explanation says that "if it comes across as cult like...then...the cult is called America..." Um, doesn't anybody who got past jr. high civics see the problem with that? )
Posted by d-fend at June 24, 2008 11:18 PMSharon;
That's right, take my words and use them the way you want. Once more: The Democratic Party is not perfect. YOUR CANDIDATE IS NOT THE NOMINEE.
This is like loosing a game and taking your toys and going home. Well go home. There are other parties who have candidates running for "president." Maybe you should select another party who supports issues that concern you. Either way, I don't care what you do! I just dont want to hear you whinning about it here.
If you want to talk about cults, why not include JFK and RFK? No, they didn't have the Internet, but they had...wait for the word...charisma. I'm going to guess that if the Internet had been around in 1968, there would have been YouTube videos of RFK getting millions of hits, and bloggers supporting Hubert Humphrey would have been denouncing RFK as a cult leader.
Obama is charismatic. That inspires some people and repels others. From some of the heated rhetoric of the last 6 months, however, one would think that Obama was staging rallies like Hitler at Nuremburg.
Posted by joel dan walls at June 25, 2008 11:13 AM