When I think of "irrational loyalties" in blog posts from the Spring of 2008 one of main examples that comes to mind are the postings from one eriposte.

In this interview the questions take up a lot more text than the answers. In particular, half of the interview -- questions 4-6 and the last word from eriposte -- is dominated by eriposte's words, not those of the interviewee. The theme of those questions is really her frustration about the fact her candidate lost the Democratic primary.

I do recall that period of time well. It was indeed disappointing to see Democrats smearing each other's candidate and distorting the records. But some of the people who are now lamenting what happened back then were among the worst participants at the time.

i'm just pissed that he didn't credit me for coining the term "shrillosphere," and the term "the great convergence," which described how some liberal blogs became as dishonest and manipulative as the corporate media...

looking forward to reading it, though. lapdogs is a must.

Oh boy! Let's get back into the primary wars, shall we? Good times...

I gotta say, it's funny how Madrak and the other puma people pat themselves on the back with the "gee, only the Clinton supporters in the blogosphere are reviewing the book..." when it's clearly not so. But I guess if your readership is down to Lambert and Carolyn Kay, you gotta please the paying guests, eh? One of 'em in your links, (don't care which), was whining about kos and the pie fights, while another pins Americablog's (last good thing they did was out JimmyJeff Man'ho) misogyny on all Obama supporters. Sheesh. Talk about holding grudges.

And really, who gives a shit about Somerby? If you've read one of his posts, you've read them all - noun, "mordant chuckle," verb. Every once in a while, he'll show up in a comment thread with some wackidoodle whine. Kinda sad, really.

Anyhow, sounds like the kind of navel gazing meta that makes kos comments (and most diaries anymore) unreadable to those whose lives aren't wrapped up in the nuances of "ratings abuse" etc. I like Boehlert, but who needs to read about the advent of blogging? I lived it!

And really, who gives a shit about Somerby? If you've read one of his posts, you've read them all

You have a point. He started in 1999, and he was one of the very few to contemporaneously document the Goring of Gore in 2000. He style is very repetitious, but perhaps in 1999 that was appropriate, as he had to hammer the point home. But times have changed and his posts have not.

There were very few leftie sites running in 1999-2000. Buzzflash, Counterpunch, Commondreams, Cursor, Dailyhowler, MHO, Alternet, Onlinejournal. I even looked to wsws.org, as their reporting was actually pretty good if you could ignore the Sparticus Youth League-style jargon. For all of these sites you had to sift through a lot of nonsense to get to useful stuff, but it beat what the corporate media was putting out. At that time Howler was a stand-out site -- now it's not.

At that time Howler was a stand-out site

Agreed. I remember all those blogs fondly, too. And don't forget Bartcop - I always loved his stuff. Somerby lost me with the nasty personal attacks on Joe Wilson, but before that, Howler helped me understand just how badly the media treated Gore.

i lived the clinton impeachment, the goring of gore, and the bush atrocities, but that didn't stop me from reading lapdogs and other accurate histories.

but that didn't stop me from reading lapdogs

Of course, I was referring to BotB, not lapdogs, and I was referring to my own reading preferences, not yours, Turkana. To each his/her own, right? Though "accurate histories" may be a contradiction in terms, depending upon the writer, eh? Even then, accuracy is subjective on certain topics, IMO.

I'm not a PUMA and never was. You can't even get that straight? But then, anonymous cowards do tend to be a little loose with the facts.

What? You aren't going to accuse me of being at the top of Maslow's pyramid lookin' down atcha? Dang. How'zat Web 2.0 comin' along, btw?

I would never accuse someone like you of being at the top of Maslow's triangle, and if you actually knew what it was, you'd know why.

Eric Boehlert was just on CNN opposing Tom Tancredo.
Good timing eRiposte.

someone like you

If I'm so anonymous, how do you know what I'm like? Or what I know?? Huh?? Huh??

Sorry, eriposte, I'll stop badgering your guests, now.

But if anyone wants some hilarity, google "madrak maslow," and hopefully you'll get the thread where the NON-puma Obama haterz discuss their new intertoob where they use Maslow's hierarchy of needs in a totally wrong way. You'll find out why the accusation that I don't know Maslow is so goddamn funny.

but that didn't stop me from reading lapdogs and other accurate histories.

Like "What Liberal Media?" by Alterman? Or "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think " by Lakoff?

Man those were rough years, as we all struggled to figure out what the hell was happening. I remember my political debates/arguments during the late 70s and early 80s (from both sides of the fence) -- at that time it seemed that the discussion we were having was generally rational.

So naturally we were unprepared for the war on logic that the Gingrich/Rove Republicans launched on America in the 1990s. Nor were we prepared for the fact that the mainstream media, which had in truth been predominantly New Deal Democrat (remember how quaint James Kilpatrick and George Will used to seem in 1980? Today the TV is full of people with their views and views even further to the right, and people like Rachel Maddow seem out of place), with a touch of corporatism, had become entirely pro-corporate, pro-military, and pro-Republican.

It took us time to sort through it. Each of us had to figure out in our own good time what we were up against. For me it was the news coverage of the 2000 recount that opened my eyes. Until then I'd blissfully assumed that the media treatment of Clinton was to be expected for any President in the media age and that the goring of Gore was largely due to his own PR failures.

Some people figured it out before that. Krugman, to his credit, saw right through the economics of Bush the candidate in 1999 and that helped him realize how the media were rooting for Bush. Other people figured it out in the aftermath of 9/11, or in the run up to Iraq, or after abu ghraib.

One thing we all had to figure out for ourselves is that you can't argue with a modern conservative. Not like the intellectually honest debates we had 25-30 years ago. One by one each of us had to come to the realization that we were dealing with something different -- not just an honest disagreement about policies but something that was at its core religious and tribal.

And that's why it was so sad to see so many Democrats displaying those same tribal tendencies during the Obama/Clinton contests. Yes, I came to favor Obama (after the race speech), but I would have just as eagerly supported Clinton with money and volunteer time had she'd won. I didn't even vote in my state's caucuses because at that time I had no preference between the two. Yet I witnessed illogical, right-wing-style, behavior from some of the more extreme supporters of both. IMHO the worst of the illogic came from the Clinton camp, but mostly at the end so I'm certain that this was only because she lost -- I expect it would have been the other way if the result had been the opposite.

Fortunately, the PUMA movement failed, despite the corporate media's overt willingness to give them tons of media exposure in hopes of generating controversy and conflict. And Clinton's early work as SoS indicates that she has the potential to be the best ever at that position. I take those things as a sign that the Democrats can recover from such internal conflicts and end up stronger.

Anonny,

First of all I'm a "he", not a "she". Not surprised that you didn't pick up on this given you don't actually read my posts before rushing to attack whatever it is that sets you off.

Second, if you believe I had "irrational loyalties" and "smeared" Obama (without correcting myself when I was inaccurate or wrong), please do let me know when I did that and how you think I should have handled the subject matter to prove that I was not consumed by "irrational loyalties". I'm open to learning from my mistakes, but I'm not going to waste my time if all you have are blanket smears of my own record.

Third, my comments have nothing to do with who won the primary, but the behavior of bloggers and the "netroots". If you can't see these two things apart and must baselessly speculate about my motives for your own amusement, feel feel to indulge.

TwinkyP,

First of all Susie is no PUMA. She is a solid progressive and she did not participate in smears of Obama or Clinton during the primary. For you to be so loose with your facts makes me wonder if you want to have a serious debate or discussion on this subject.

I believe that we cannot learn from our mistakes if we are afraid to go back and really try to understand what happened and why. This is the same reason why I support a Truth Commission on the happenings of the Bush era and find arguments of "forget the past" to be inexcusable.

Different people are going to have different opinions and you are free to highlight specific things that are inaccurate or false in what I write or in the writings of anyone else who is linked to in the post.

I read Bob Somerby almost every day (he's on my must-read list) because he adds a much needed perspective to correct the inaccuracies on both left and right. I also would never hesitate to correct him if I think he's wrong on something (if you were reading me during the Nigergate days, you would know that I was one of Somerby's harshest critics on the Joe Wilson matter - and I criticized him based on facts).

SoS,

Thanks, I saw that. Eric is a great guy. He takes his journalism really seriously.

Turkana,

I'll pass on your complaint to Eric :-)

Like "What Liberal Media?" by Alterman?

That's the one that made it all come together for me. And then Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars... Pretty much laid out what was going on back then. Hesiod was another hero, as was Billmon. It snowballed after that. Kos, Soto, Gilliard, digby.

One thing we all had to figure out for ourselves is that you can't argue with a modern conservative.

But boy, we're sure good at arguing with ourselves, aren't we? You're right, though, there's no debating with people who refuse to argue in good faith.

IMHO the worst of the illogic came from the Clinton camp, but mostly at the end so I'm certain that this was only because she lost -- I expect it would have been the other way if the result had been the opposite.

I supported Clinton, and though I knew she had no chance toward the end, I was glad that she went all out, and I'm glad she got SecState, 'cos you're right, she's already proving to be good at it and seems to enjoy it. The pumas are pretty much what helped me get over the eventual disappointment - I was bummed, but not that bitter. And yes, the corresponding Obama fans would have reacted just as sourly.

But that's the chance you take when you reject a top-down style of running a party apparatus. The left's greatest strength is also the greatest weakness. Our sub-tribes bicker, a lot, because we won't be run by any central authority. It's like our prime directive.

I think the primary was pretty much the boundary between the reality-based ideal and the real application of online organization, where we realized the left was just as human as everyone else. No matter what the medium, humans eventually settle into a tribal mentality, and individuals settle into established and defined roles within the community. That's just how we roll. And while it sucks that we fight all the time, I'd still rather be in this tribe than peter's. What kind of nitwit chooses a dictatorship?

First of all Susie is no PUMA.

You're right, and I apologize to you and her for calling her one. As I said, I was a Clinton supporter, and I actually lurked at Corrente and SG and others in the Clinton camp, and I followed your writing during the primary because you guys were the only ones who saw what I was seeing. I watched puma spring from Corrente, though, and didn't like it at all. The post about Maslow that I mentioned was pretty much a turning point for me, and because it was hosted at SG, and she participated, I had to mention it. It was so silly. Still, I'm aware of Susie's credentials, I shouldn't be so "loose" with the big picture because of one goofy post no one else saw and no longer matters. Again, apologies.

Also, unlike Annony, I don't really connect you with the bitter crowd, though I thought your questions to Boehlert were slanted toward the primary with an obvious angle in mind, assumed, on my part, from your past writings. Still, it's only part 1, so I figure you have more interview to go, and it can't all be about the primary, right? I look forward to it.

I believe that we cannot learn from our mistakes if we are afraid to go back and really try to understand what happened and why. This is the same reason why I support a Truth Commission on the happenings of the Bush era and find arguments of "forget the past" to be inexcusable.

Goodness, did I say we should forget the past? I certainly didn't mean to do so. And I certainly don't remember opposing a Truth Commission, though now that you mention it, I've been pretty much conditioned to react skeptically to committees with "truth" or "commission" in their titles. I'm willing to wait a little longer for Holder to get his shit together, though, because I'd rather see this go through the courts rather than have nothing but a "commission report" at the end of the circus. In the best of times, that stuff takes a flipping long time. And as far as I know, Obama's still without Dawn Johnson, (x'd fingers for recess appointment), so his ducks still aren't all in a row. Not that I'm against people pushing for "harder, faster," mind you; I'll mock anything that moves, and I'm glad people are putting on the pressure because Obama pretty much said, "I'll do what the country wants, but you better figure out what you really want to do and fight for it." I guess I'm just not as disappointed as some that it's all not happening superfast, you know?

BTW, yes, I was reading you then so I knew you'd defended Joe Wilson.

So naturally we were unprepared for the war on logic that the Gingrich/Rove Republicans launched on America in the 1990s. Nor were we prepared for the fact that the mainstream media, which had in truth been predominantly New Deal Democrat (remember how quaint James Kilpatrick and George Will used to seem in 1980? Today the TV is full of people with their views and views even further to the right...

Anonny, You bring up an outstanding point. Of course I relate it to the republi-KKKon master plan, the elimination of "The Fairness Doctrine". Democrats had no answer for it. Thank god the void was filled by the internet or we would still be grasping at straws.

TwinkyP,

I disagree that Corrente was about PUMA. VastLeft and Lambert are solid progressives and neither were "PUMA". I guess we can agree to disagree about what Corrente was.

My focus is going to be on a few aspects covered in the book, but what you see as a focus on the "primary", I see as a focus on the blogosphere and "netroots". It will not just include the primary - it will also include a bit on the blogosphere's coverage of the general election and other issues.

I never said Corrente was about puma, just that it sprang from there, and was encouraged by Lambert and others until it grew into a monster. I'd vacated the premises by then, and I admit that my bias is wrapped up in my having watched it happen in real time. It wasn't pretty. As I recall, Vastleft stayed above the fray for the most part. But it's neither here nor there at this point, since puma's defunct.

It will not just include the primary

I figured as much, and I look forward to the rest of the interview, sincerely.

I disagree that Corrente was about PUMA. VastLeft and Lambert are solid progressives and neither were "PUMA".

eRiposte, Our paths definitely go in other directions here.

They certainly didn't do anything to quell the outrage... kinda like saying, Larry Johnson's "No Quarter" wasn't about PUMA.

Twinky P,

PUMA was born on sites like the Confluence. Lambert has consistently encouraged *skepticism against anyone claiming to stand for progressive ideals but doesn't actually deliver* - for a long time. He's never appeared to me to be the type who would just fall in line behind someone because they are declared the "leader".

SoS,

There are a number of people who have been blogging at Corrente for a long time and some, IIRC supported Obama even if they did not blog as much as the Clinton supporters. Lambert has been pretty vocal about holding Obama's feet to the fire (he was originally an Edwards' supporter if I recall correctly) and he shot down the smears against Obama at No Quarter and other sites on more than one occasion. The problem is that people who tepidly supported Obama (and were very critical of him when he failed to adopt progressive positions) are being equated with people who were solidly against Obama and even considering voting for McCain (which was the case with many but not all PUMAs). There is no way in this universe that Lambert votes for John McCain or contemplates voting for Republicans. Anyway, if you have specific examples of stuff that was published by front-pagers in Corrente that was anything like the sheer idiocy and smears that got published in sites like No Quarter, I'd like to see it.

eRiposte, My comment was, They certainly didn't do anything to quell the outrage... Here are a few examples of what I used to read.

Fine with me By lambert on Mon, 02/16/2009 - 2:46am 1. This post is a response to a TC post.

2. VL's original post was perfectly tame, and if anything meant to elicit defense of the PUMAs, not attack them!

3. And if you look at the comments to VL's post, you'll see us in response mode as well. Some of the responses may not be what people wanted to hear, but ask a question, you get an answer. And if you look at the screen dump on VL's post, you'll see at least some TCer's (not all) praising the thread.

And no, I certainly don't consider TC or PUMAs "the enemy." Why would I?

—
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

It seemed that Lambert was supportive of PUMA's until they associated with Lyndon LaRouche.

[I mean the "joke" post that I linked to, not my post.]

Only conclusion I can draw.

I mean, I always turn to LaRouche for my jokes. Who wouldn't?

Which is really too bad. We need PUMA to be smart. This isn't smart.

And at this point, I hate to say it, but I'm more concerned with lame, off-point responses than the original lame joke. So should you be, and so should PUMA.

From what I read, they rarely put myiq2xu and goldberry in their prospective places.

Just saying, they almost went full PUMA support before PUMA started showing their true colors.

Here's VL at one point:

Some of y'all don't seem to have read me very closely By vastleft on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 2:54pm http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-d...

Since I began to know much about Obama, I've never held out much hope for him.

Given some evidence, notably his voting record, I felt I could rely on him to be 2% less evil than McCain. I still expect that's true, but it's increasingly clear that there are absolutely no limits to how far he's willing to go to kiss the ass of radical right.

He needs to have a little fear o' god that his base won't support him, and thus I'm agreeing more with the leverage-oriented PUMAs.

That said, I am very wary of any positive claims progressives may make for McCain, who seriously sux. But McCain is beholden to his base, and Obama is also beholden to McCain's base. Something needs to be done about that latter fact.

So I'll admit, they weren't as bad as "NO Quarter", but still, in the early stages, they did nothing to silence the PUMA's. And yes they voted for Obama, being the lesser of two evils.

And I'll be the first to admit it, Obama has shown signs of inexperience.
Hillary would be holding firm, though the repukes would better be able to rebuild their base through sheer opposition to her.
With Obama in power... they seem to have no answer for his political moves... he is a savy politician.

So yes, Hillary would be a better President in the first 4 months of her job than Obama. It's still early for him.
Thanks for the discussion.

SoS,

Let me give you some other links to check out. Here is a post where Lambert wrote about the Johnson "video" saying that we should not go down this path of publishing this type of crap. He also called out one of the prominent PUMA sites for publishing something that seemed racist. Yes, he was sympathetic to *arguments* regarding holding Obama accountable - whether they came from a PUMA or not - but he definitely did not share any sentiments of passing on unfounded smears of Obama. Look, during the primary, I criticized mostly those who made grossly inaccurate statements or advanced unfounded smears of HRC. There were many Obama supporters who I had no issue with even if they were extremely critical of HRC based on the facts. Lambert might not be perfect, but he's a real progressive - unlike some of the PUMAs whose idea of progressivism was to use the same type of crap that they attacked some Obama supporters for (or worse, vote for McCain).

The fact that they distanced themselves from the PUMAs once the true colors of the PUMAs came out - as you have pointed out - is a positive thing in my mind. But, their basic principle was that Obama needs to be pushed in a more progressive direction and should be made to work for his votes. I found that to be perfectly reasonable especially given that they had no illusions about supporting McCain or any crap like that.

Thanks for your comments.

It's a shame, isn't it? The primaries are long over, and I've moved on. Seven of Six, apparently, is still fixated on them. My advice? Get over it.

* * *

eRiposte does a fine job of setting the record straight, and I don't feel any need to relitigate that sad history. I will point out, however, that "Why will they not denounce ____ " is a very old rhetorical tactic, generally answered by saying "Everyone else is doing so well, so why should I interfere with the fun?" And one might also turn it around, and ask, of Seven of Six, "Why do they not denounce ______ -- for whatever outrage about the primaries that anyone who was paying attention might find obvious. But that way lies madness, and an endless timesink.

And I'm still waiting for my pony. I guess it must be on back order. Like a lot of people's. Except for the Hope Police, I think....

The primaries are long over, and I've moved on. Seven of Six, apparently, is still fixated on them.

Not at all lambert... just trying to paint an accurate account of blog history.

My advice? Get over it.

I have. Though initially an Edwards supporter, the next candidate I supported won.

...for whatever outrage about the primaries that anyone who was paying attention might find obvious.

Through the snark... probably meaning FL and MI.

But that way lies madness, and an endless timesink.

No doubt... thank goodness I never read you daily.

While I disagree with Obama on many issues (probably the same as you), I feel he's doing the best he can, considering the situation he inherited.

Good luck with that pony... maybe I can put in a good word for you.

I would just like to ask a few questions and make a few comments to any one that happens to know me as a front pager at TC.

First,as one of the administrators there, I can tell you that we actively and I personally remove any thing having to do with birther conspiracies, whitey tapes, and obvious Republican talking points. If we don't remove them, we disclaim them. We do not promote and actively dissuade people from any commenting along these lines. I just delete them. However, as long as some one isn't rude, we don't censor Republicans and we do link to authors where a conservative or moderate viewpoint adds information to a topic. That being said, I, as well as all of the other front pagers proudly wear the liberal label to varying degrees.

Second, I do not frequent a lot of other PUMA sites, however, I have yet to meet any PUMA that links to or thinks Larouche is anything other than a complete nutter. Where are you getting this 'true colors' meme? I understand the oft repeated 'racist meme' since it now seems to be part and parcel of the progressive straw man argument. Whenever any one has difficulty speaking to the argument directly, the racist label is automatically applied. But LAROUCHE? Can you point me to one SERIOUS link to a LAROUCHE page on any CONFLUENCE post?

I've just been stunned by the news of George Tiller's assassination but, I have to speak out against the smearing of The Confluence, goldberry/riverdaughter & myiq2xu by some of the commenters here.

The Confluence is a Liberal leaning site whose authors are life long Democrats.

Lumping us (if only by implication) in a group that ever supported LaRouche or some of the more crack-pot ideas that were floating around last spring/summer/fall misrepresents what we WERE about during that period.

OoooooOOOoo! It looks like PUMA has become the new "Liberal". Everyone is running and scurrying to get as far away from it as possible. Let's clear some things up about PUMA:
1.) It stands for Party Unity My Ass and was a response to the RBC hearing of May 31, 2008. You can check The Confluence post PUMA Power in the tabs for what it meant and what we hoped to accomplish.
2.) It went viral. People started to crawl out of the woodwork to claim they were PUMAs. As far as I know, the only other PUMA group that I endorsed was PUMAPac, started by Darragh Murphy. We had other PUMA blogs on our blogroll but we were very careful about who we included.
3.) PUMA was a grassrooots activist movement to try to stop the speeding train that was an unaccountable DNC. No more, no less. Just Say No Deal was a coalition of PUMA groups that joined in that effort. Unfortunately, JSND wasn't as picky as we were with regard to screening out loonies, racista and LaRouchians. I had several conversations with Diane Mantavoulous both publicly and privately expressing my concern and anger over the fact that we were letting these people in. When JSND finally embraced the McCain campaign, we broke with them.
4.) The Confluence is not now nor ever has been associated with racists or LaRouchians. We either delete their comments or we ask them to leave.
That's it!
It looks like The Confluence has been the target of a vicious smear campaign. I stand by all of my co-bloggers, both past and present, as being people with integrity, courage and fairness. Now, I would really appreciate it if some of you out there would stop smearing us. Of course, if you don't, it won't make a bit of difference to us but it does make it very hard for us to want to work with you in the future.
BTW, Eric, if you're reading this, I intend to review your book. I just had a touch of burnout and had to sleep for a couple of weeks. But I'm better now. Thanks for the advance copy.

From what I read, they rarely put myiq2xu and goldberry in their prospective places.

And what exactly is my "prospective" place?

I love it when I wake up on a Sunday morning to discover anonymous strangers taking my name in vain. Who are you, "Seven of Six" and where is your blog? Are you one of our deranged blogstalkers? You sure sound like one of them.

I was a liberal Democrat for two decades, but thanks to Obama I'm just a liberal now. What's your beef with me and why are you bringing it up over here?

PUMA was born at The Confluence but quickly went viral. Lambert never showed any interest in PUMA and gave us the cold shoulder from day one. There have been a lot of people claiming to be part of PUMA and some of them may have been LaRouchite nutters, but The Confluence has never tolerated racists or birthers.

I love it when I wake up on a Sunday morning to discover anonymous strangers taking my name in vain.

The blogs are open... I called it as I read it.

Who are you, "Seven of Six" and where is your blog?

You know how to click on my link.

Are you one of our deranged blogstalkers? You sure sound like one of them.

If you made that up, it's pretty funny, my hat's off to you.
I read many different blogs, but I do you think you and you're PUMA's went a little off the deep end.

Especially about the part of ignoring the republi-KKKons role in FL and MI. It was so easy to blame Obama for the whole mess... and you did.

Now that you all sound so healthy and managed to have moved on, we Liberal Progressives can all get along... right?

Almost forgot, PUMA! Peace to you all.

Especially about the part of ignoring the republi-KKKons role in FL and MI. It was so easy to blame Obama for the whole mess... and you did.

No one at The Confluence has ever forgotten the Republican's role in FL & MI.... It was the DNC at their RBC meeting exactly one year ago today that forgot that.

No one at The Confluence has ever forgotten the Republican's role in FL & MI.... It was the DNC at their RBC meeting exactly one year ago today that forgot that.

We get it... you're not over it... blame everyone... but Hillary... PUMA!

I'm done with this issue... I lived these pie fights... almost lost close friends over it... no more... peace!

I'm done with this issue... I lived these pie fights... almost lost close friends over it... no more... peace!

If you don't want pie fights then quit throwing pies at strangers.

"Especially about the part of ignoring the republi-KKKons role in FL and MI."

Since the GOP was responsible for the scheduling of the FL/MI primaries, why were those states punished by RBC??

Your failure to substantiate the allegations you made demonstrates your lack of credibility.

Maybe you'll find your answer here.

You guys are turning on the freak show again.

BTW, at this site... you are strangers.

Had a buddy go to Cal State, Stanislaus.

We all had a good conversation on FL and MI here.

Had a buddy go to Cal State, Stanislaus.

Gary Condit?

Gary Condit?

Not quite... he holds the record for most rebounds in a Cal State Stanislaus basketball game.
In fact, we used to be roomates.

Soeaking of ponies, I thought this post from Barry Rithholz was interesting:

So far, the Obama administration approach to bailouts has been to keep running Bush Economic term III. They have been far too kind (genteel even) showering taxpayer monies on the incompetents and fools who drove their firms over the abyss. Indeed, it's all but impossible to see where the largesse of the Bush bailout policies ends and the Obama bailout policies begins.

If today were November 2012, I would not vote for this team. As far as the banking sector is concerned, this gang is no different than the knaves and dolts who came before. It is more of the same irresponsible, expensive and reckless policy that preceded them.

Maybe when Eric B writes his next book, he can address the catastrophic failure of the A list to address the financial crisis.

And I'm sure that twinky p and seven of six will be hatin' on the PUMAs then too!

Not quite... he holds the record for most rebounds in a Cal State Stanislaus basketball game.

We had a basketball team?

Did we win any games?

And I'm sure that twinky p and seven of six will be hatin' on the PUMAs then too!

PUMA hating is like Clinton hating - it's irrational and will never go out of style

myiq2xu

PUMA hating is like Clinton hating - it's irrational and will never go out of style

On this, we agree. You know, I really have moved on. In fact, I moved on in September 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed. But every so often, people who haven't gotten over it crawl out of the woodwork and start ... making ... shit ... up, and then it's got to be addressed. Complete waste of time. Shouldn't these people be off setting up house parties for OFA or something?

myiq2xu

PUMA hating is like Clinton hating - it's irrational and will never go out of style

On this, we agree. You know, I really have moved on. In fact, I moved on in September 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed and I started posting on the financial crisis, which was a heck of a lot more interesting. But every so often, people who haven't gotten over it crawl out of the woodwork and start ... making ... shit ... up, and then it's got to be addressed. Complete waste of time. Shouldn't these people be off setting up house parties for OFA or something?

We had a basketball team?

You're the self proclaimed genuis... you didn't know? Probably didn't know your teams were called the Warriors.

PUMA hating is like Clinton hating - it's irrational and will never go out of style

I love that Democrat Hillary Clinton... she would have just clicked her heels together and poof, America's problems would have disappeared.
And that Mark Penn... he would have been indispensible.

You know, I really have moved on. In fact, I moved on in September 2008...

Yeah, I moved on June 1st.

So for blog history's sake, we can all say, "Lambert moved on from PUMA in September 2008."
That Lambert is brilliant.

But every so often, people who haven't gotten over it crawl out of the woodwork and start ... making ... shit ... up, and then it's got to be addressed.

Discussing opinions on a blog history post by eRiposte, to help set the record straight is not crawling out of the woodwork or making shit up. Glad you contributed.

Complete waste of time.

Evidently not, double poster.

Hate to say it, PUMA's are still a few hundred strong freakshow that rears it's ugly head on anniversaries.

Probably didn't know your teams were called the Warriors.

CSU Stanislaus is named for warrior chief Estanislau. While I was there they were trying to take away the Warrior mascot. You must not have heard about our "Trail of Beers" protest.

BTW - Lambert was never associated with PUMA

What is the obsession with hating Pumas? They are democrats that said Obama was a fraud, and they were right in many ways. It is up to groups from the left, including pumas(even though they are clearly hell bent on taking issue with almost everything obama does), and other groups from the left, or the middle, or any democrat to ask "what change?". The puma's were right when they said O does not support gay rights, that he is no feminist, and on and on. So why so many are still haggling over the evil pumas is beyond me. There is no reason why all democrats should have stood behind obama if they didn't agree with who he is, and now obama supporters be able to see what their point was. They may have him in the crosshairs, but if they won't, who will? Naral and other groups are still licking his bum. Really really sad.

I am a proud PUMA. I am pro equality and anti misogyny. I disagreed with the premise floated by progressive 1.0 that Obama and Clinton were practically the same. It was clear from the get go that Obama's economic viewpoint was far closer to the GOP and it is unsurprising that he is willing to bail out corporate America while snubbing homeowners to anyone who paid attention. I thought his credibility on issues such as gay rights were quesstionable from the get go. I think that you had to be willfully stupid to believe that someone who gave a platform to someone who insisted gay is an affliction to score political points is on the side of gay rights. I disagreed vehemently with the position that he really didn't admire Reagan or wish to govern like him. Particularly because if he was searching for an example of bad transformational policy he didn't have to go that far back, he couldv'e used Bush. Anyone who thought we were going to get single payer didn't a) pay attention to his economic policy team who are pretty free market folk -reminscent of GOP(it's why we all got checks instead of starting by paying for infrastructure during the first round of stimulus) and b) didn't pay attention to his Harry and Louise ads and where he insinuated that a government run universal plan would force poor Americans to choose between rent and healthcare. I disagreed with how he ran his campaign by allowing his supporters to smear anyone who disagreed with his policy positions as uneducated and racist. I disagreed with how he allowed the RBC committee to cheat on his behalf and how he allowed party Democrats like Pelosi to bully Clinton delegates all the way up until the end.

I voted for John McCain. At the end of the day I believed that it was important to send a message to the Democrats that my vote isn't a given. I won't be bullied into deserting principles and it isn't good enough to just have put them on paper and not fight for them. I believed that I'd rather have someone I disagreed with in principle lead me then put someone in charge that I didn't or couldn't trust. If that means I don't have cred as a "progressive" so be it. I'd rather go down as someone who is principled enough to fight for her beliefs and willing to go to the mat for them. Evidently, that isn't progressive. I could say that progressive means allowing the Democrats to use you like toilet paper. It means that you allow them over and over to "keep their powder dry" on issues ranging from Iraq to health care. After all, it isn't like you'd ever vote for the Republican. That'd mean you couldn't claim the title "progressive(morally superior to those who you disagree with strategically)". I'm not a progressive though. I'm a liberal. I won't bash people who didn't vote for John McCain. I won't say that by voting for Barack Obama despite your reservations that you actually are just as responsible for this administration as the Kool Aid gang. I won't say I told you so -each and every time he disappoints you from torture pics to health care(even though it would be quite satisfying)to gay equality. I won't ask you how being stabbed in the back by a Democrat is that much better than being knifed in the front by a member of the GOP(even as I think it). I won't even ask that you allow me to be lumped in as a progressive(you can keep your title which means little to nothing and has been able to purchase you so little politically). I do ask that you quit pretending that by being progressive that you are somehow my moral superior. You are not. You won on paper. The guy you voted for is continuing many of the policies of the guy you abhorred. In my book a win like that isn't and wasn't worth it.

By the way, I'll continue to vote independantly. I'll be darned if I'll let the criticisms I see here deter me from making my own principled fight for the beliefs like equality, fairness or the ability for women to have the right to determine their own destiny. I'll continue to insist that Democrats need to do more than stand for these principles on paper. Men and women are fighting and dying for American principles. The least I can do is be willing to go to the mat for what I believe. You all feel free to pat yourselves on the back though and continue to vote for a party that ignores you because they know that you aren't going anywhere(after all that'd make you a Republican r@tf*cker). You continue to cluck about how you wish they'd change or how shocked you are that they'd sell you out(because they know you aren't going anywhere). Keep claiming superiority to those PUMAs like myself. It's all very, very productive. NOT

I voted for John McCain... I'll be darned if I'll let the criticisms I see here deter me from making my own principled fight for the beliefs like equality, fairness or the ability for women to have the right to determine their own destiny.

Voting republi-KKKon and women's rights don't go hand in hand.

You all feel free to pat yourselves on the back though and continue to vote for a party that ignores you because they know that you aren't going anywhere(after all that'd make you a Republican r@tf*cker). You continue to cluck about how you wish they'd change or how shocked you are that they'd sell you out(because they know you aren't going anywhere).

I have a great Liberal Progressive congressman representing me, Raúl M. Grijalva. My goal is to continue and try to elect more just like him.
The "Dino Dems" and "Blue Dogs" must go. I want more Independents like Senator Bernie Sanders elected. And I have come a long way, I took myself off the Obama mailing list in protest to some of his actions lately.

And if all of you would have been here, instead of being self absorbed in PUMA then you would have know where I stand. So comments like, "Keep claiming superiority to those PUMAs like myself" do not hold up. I just say that you're a little one track minded is all.

Rock on, peace, out.

Whoa, I happened to come back to this post to check something and the comment thread has certainly been busy.

I welcome any discussion on blog history and what really happened and did not happen last year given that is a big focus of this post and Boehlert's book. I would just like to ask everyone commenting here to try to make the discourse as civil as possible. If a critic is mistaken, let's just discuss that and try to lower the temperature a bit, OK :-)

Thanks in advance.

Let me clue YOU in. Women's rights and Democrats don't go hand in hand. Partial birth would never have passed without the help of Democrats. It wasn't just Republicans that voted to limit the rights of women to score political points. When the price of birth control sky rocketed on campuses what did the precious Democrats do? That's right they did nothing. What did they do when the SC ruled that insurance formularies weren't required to carry birth control. That's right. Again, they did nothing. Then you have the craven Obama who stripped low cost birth control from the stimulus bill supposedly to get the GOP on board(because throwing women without means under the bus is acceptable in the name of bipartisanship and he didn't even really bother to see if giving it up would yield results. That's how important it was to Mr. Feminist). Let's not forget that conscience clause though. I'm positive the Democrats got rid of that right? Wrong. It hasn't been touched. The numbber of women he has in his cabinets, less than his predecessor. Even the committee that is supposed to be there to explore all things female is comprised mainly of males. We won't even get into his frat boy speech writer and the fact that his economic adviser is a pig that is on the record as saying girls aren't good at math. So tell me again why the Democrats are so superior on womens rights on anything other than paper?

Meanwhile the female on the GOP ticket was part of a group that helped bring about the Domestic Violence Act. They were pivotal in the Child Enforcement Act too. They were workiing on getting support for women and children in the form of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton College Students Pregnant and Parenting Act(considering birth control campus costs increased probably a good idea). She went back to her state and put a pro choice judge on the bench(despite her personal belief in abortion). She went back to her state and increased money for low income health care for children. Yeah, she's a real woman hater that Sarah Palin. Pulease.

I was smart enough not to buy the tripe tossed around I actually researched the people I voted for. When I looked carefully at what was said and done I still feel I picked the stronger candidate in regards to women and children.

Voting republi-KKKon and women's rights don't go hand in hand.

Which party spent 2008 indulging in an orgy of misogyny and which one put a woman on the ballot as a VP nominee?

I welcome any discussion on blog history and what really happened and did not happen last year

and:

Today, online backers of Obama and Clinton say the other was to blame (i.e. they started it.)

There's no question who is to blame. The comment threads are still there as evidence of who did what and when. I don't recall Obama supporters being driven out of the blogs they had called home and forced to start new blogs.

PUMA is really just a coalition of refugees that were purged from other lefty blogs. They called us racist ratfuckers, but they lied. We are liberal Democrats-in-exile.

Every day that goes by we see more evidence that we were right and they were wrong.

Obama is the ratfucker.

The fact that they distanced themselves from the PUMAs once the true colors of the PUMAs came out - as you have pointed out - is a positive thing in my mind.

What exactly do you think PUMA's true colors are?

If you think PUMA is anything but a grassroots coalition of liberals please provide proof.

PUMA bashing at "I told you so" time? Not surprising. I staunchly held onto the smeared word "liberal" until it became "in" again and it's sported by people who condone torture, wiretapping, wars and gay bashing. So, I guess I'll stick with PUMA for a while - at least until such transformation occurs.For now, there is a whole PUMA blogosphere which is the new reality based community. From there, we watch you proud "non-PUMAs" being shocked daily - discovering new Obama surprises of which PUMA warned since the inception of this race. Who knows? in a few years, my own "Jr.jr" nickname for Obama will also become a household term.
Meanwhile, happy ducking!

Seven of Six at 6.13pm

"Hate to say it, PUMA's are still a few hundred strong freakshow that rears it's ugly head on anniversaries."

Sorry to say, I thought I'd reply to this on your blog called "Left is Right", unfortunately I found there to be not ONE comment on any of your posts over there.

Doesn't anyone listen to you? ever?

Could that be because you never do your own research?

And just prefer to let colorful platitudes roll out of your mouth?

Well, that was entertaining! Thanks SoS. My favorite was the one who admitted they voted for McCain to send a message. Unfortunately, the message was "I'm an idiot." But since there are so many idiots in the world, I guess the message got lost in the noise. But hey, everyone's got a right to their own philosophy, even if it revolves around waiting for the president to do something that pisses off liberals just so you can say "I told you so."

Wolverines!! Ooops, PUMA!!

And to think, we were on opposite sides during the Obama/Clinton primary wars Twinky. Those were the days. Now we laugh at the old arguments... while others have to carry around this vitriol. I'd rather be us!

...and which one put a woman on the ballot as a VP nominee?

A woman who had to be coached on questions for every presser... she couldn't even out perform Katie Couric... and you wanted her to be V/P of the U.S.? LOL!

I don't recall Obama supporters being driven out of the blogs they had called home and forced to start new blogs.

For blog history's sake, you guys did that voluntarily. You didn't like the discourse so you started your own blogs... be proud, don't blame.

Obama is the ratfucker.

I feel sorry for you genuis... that's a heavy burden to carry.

Doesn't anyone listen to you? ever?

Mike does and a few flyby trolls... like most small blogs we are family guys who can't devote the time we'd like to.

Could that be because you never do your own research?

As opposed to your research minded blog?

And just prefer to let colorful platitudes roll out of your mouth?

Thanks for the compliment!

I will say this, PUMA is an entertaining bunch.

And to think, we were on opposite sides during the Obama/Clinton primary wars Twinky.

Actually, we should thank these sore losers for the survival of our friendship. If I hadn't watched their craziness spin out of control last year, I might not have gotten over my own anger, and maybe now would be with them, championing Palin.

Heehee. Nah! But it is true that these guys are way better grudge holders than I ever was, and they pretty much showed me how repulsive the bitter dead enders were by putting all their eggs in the "I toldja so" basket. I mean, sheesh, look at this thread! Four pumas posting multiple times equals a "movement" to them. That's not so special, since I can produce a movement in my bathroom every morning!

Still, they gather on command, don't they? Good li'l soldiers for Spite. Always good for a laugh, but not much else.

Check it out!

Last year we retreated here to The Confluence to regroup and reorganize. Now it is time for us to begin reclaiming Left Blogistan,even if we have to do it one blog at a time.

That's one hilarious comment thread. They're fighting over whether lambert lied about writing in Hillary's name in the election. Bwahahaha!

Heh

You voted for the guy who is almost the mirror image of George Bush in policy(but hey he has the all important d after his name). Which one of us is the idiot again. Oh yeah, that would be you.

You have opted out of the two party system by insisting the Democrats will always be your vote(because after all anyone who votes for a Republican is a Republican r@tf*cker). It isn't any wonder the Democrats treat you all like domestic violence victims. They know you'll be back no matter what they do. Leave the troops in Iraq? Sure. Why not? After all what are they gonna do, hold their breath(They won't vote Republican because then they'd get called a Republican r@tf*cker). Keep rules in place that allow for spying? Heck yeah. After all, it isn't like those voters are going anywhere(or they'd be Republican r@tf*ckers). Continue torture. yesiree bob(it isn't like those incredibly intelligent- haha democrats are going anywhere-they'd be republican r@tf*ckers if they did-lol) I know maybe you all can send Obama a sternly worded letter(after all it worked so well when the Democratic Congress sent them to Bush.) Let me know when you all are interested in real change(not just sloganeering). I can assure you though the way to get it ain't gonna be by promising one of the two parties a guaranteed vote regardless of their actions because frankly that's just IDIOCY.

Woohoo

TwinkyP is quite the progressive. Bailouts are great(Go Obama). Continuing to stay in Iraq for another 10 years is peachy(Change we can believe in). Torture is way cool(ecept when those Republican r@tf*ckers are doing it). Spying on Americans is American.

Let's all cheer for Obama. He's a TRUE progressive.

I'm glad I call myself a liberal because frankly it's sick the way you all make excuses(and it's EXACTLY like the Democrats did during the Bush years.)

You all have nothing on the keyboard commandos on the right side of the aisle. There isn't a principle you'd fight for. No, you'd rather whine.
Pathetic.

So, the guy who votes for McCain is gonna school us on what is a TRUE progressive? The guy who called his wife a cunt in public is not misogynist, but Obama is. Heh. That's not whining you're hearing, ya li'l baby. It's laughter. I suggest you get used to it, you prolly hear it a lot. Heehee.

The guy who called his wife a cunt in public

Can you cite an eyewitness to that? Someone who publicly stated that they actually heard McCain say it, not something second-hand?

IIRC it was Bob Somerby that did a piece debunking that story last year.

(But don't start letting the truth get in your way now)

Here's an eyewitness account.

Bwahahaha! Good one, nutty guy!

Here's how I learned about "pumas":

1.Goldberry/Riverdaughter posted on Kos and compared Obama supporters to jihadists. She failed to show any concrete proof of this allegation. That's a very ugly thing to say, especially in the aftermath of 9/11 and the attempts by the right to label Obama as a "stealth/closet" muslim terror sympathizer.:
http://goldberry.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/14/436822/-Obamaphiles-carry-out-Jihad-on-DailyKos
She's never apologized for this.

2.Harriet Christian declared Obama was "an inadequate black male". None of the puma blogs distanced themselves from this and still talk about Christian like she's their hero.

It's been a year since Christian said that, if pumas can't understand why some us consider that a racist statement, they're more divorced from reality than I thought.

"Today, online backers of Obama and Clinton say the other was to blame"
Hillary herself was to blame when she voted for the Iraq AUMF in 2002.

I'm a girl moron.

I already know what a progressive is. Torture - The solution is to whine about it ad nauseaum. The Iraq war- The solution again is to whine ad nauseaum. FISA- whine ad nauseaum ......fill in the blank for each of the issues that Obama has done the same thing as Bush on.

It's a TWO party system. Your default vote is for a Democrat. That essentially means its a one party system for you. You can send sternly worded letters, threaten to collectively hold your breath, whine but at the end of the day they know that you'll vote for them again- otherwise you'd be a Republican r@tf*cker.

I'm glad I'm not a progressive. I'd rather my ideology mean more than a letter behind a name on the ballot box.

Hey Jason

How's that Iraq war thing working out? I hear we're going to be there for at least an other 10 years. Let's hear it for our President's "progressive" stance on Iraq.

Here's an eyewitness account.

Are you sure you didn't mean this link?

http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/happy_new_year_open_thread/

Here's what cwaltz said about McCain a while back:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/26/181038/41
He is the literal Bush heir
Embracing the religious folks that helped get GW elected, parroting Bush on immigration and Iraq. I can't imagine him as America's choice with that in mind.

by cwaltz on Sun Nov 26, 2006 at 06:32:05 PM PDT
----------------------------------------------------
And cwaltz voted for McCain. What a puma loser.

Hillary herself was to blame when she voted for the Iraq AUMF in 2002.

And that justified the deranged attacks on her supporters?

Why didn't y'all stop supporting Obama when he picked Biden as his running mate?

myiq wrote:
"And that justified the deranged attacks on her supporters?"
What attacks, specically? Link to one. I've already been to cannonfire, Joe's "proof" is bullshit, so don't bother posting that link here again. And by "proof" of attacks, I mean other than puma blogs.

"Why didn't y'all stop supporting Obama when he picked Biden as his running mate?"
Because (duh) Obama was at the top of the ticket, not Biden. Just like we didn't call for his impeachment when he nominated Clinton to be Secretary of State.

What attacks, specically?

How about the ones that Eric Boehlert was talking about?

Are you sure you didn't mean this link?

Not sure what you mean by that. Was it bad of them to use an actual deranged, genocidal comment from a prominent PUMA commenter in that image?

How about the ones that Eric Boehlert was talking about?

I guess you don't understand the definition of the word specifically.

I too have read about how terrible things were for the poor Hillary supporters at Daily Kos but I've never seen concrete evidence of it. I could easily go to MyDD and find plenty of examples of Hillary supporters being mean to Obama supporters in the comments there. The endless anti Obama diaries read like they were extracted from Red State. From what I remember, the outnumbered "Obots" at MyDD didn't cry foul and stomp off, they gave it right back to the Hillary supporters.

I'm a girl moron.

Don't be too hard on yourself, li'l one. Maybe one day you'll grow up to be a woman moron!

All I know is that you Obots stuck us with a Reagan loving, state secrets loving, gay hater for the next 8 years. Thanks loads.

You do know McCain lost, don't you?

All I know is that you Obots stuck us with a Reagan loving, state secrets loving, gay hater for the next 8 years. Thanks loads.

Never mind that you probably voted for McCain/Palin (irony, come get a hug), but I love how you numskulls think Hillary Clinton would have turned the US into Denmark in four months.

Yeah, that was before I realized who the real Bush heir was. His name is Obama. Guantanamo Bay....still open. Iraq war....... Still going strong. Universal healthcare would mean forcing the poor to chose between rent and health care. Reagan was "transformational". Giving McClurkin the lecturn to call gay a disease and continuing faith based programs.

Obama makes McCain look like a second cousin twice removed from Bush in comparison but you know that. Congrats genius on your progressive President. At least from 2006 to 2008(since anyone could read when I made that comment) I actually took the time to learn which was the lesser of the two evils. You apparently took the cheerleader route and now claim the right to whine about how awful it is that he hasn't changed Bush's policies on anything and everything from faith based programs to Iraq(which makes YOU the real loser). That's what your good at though......progressive whining. Do they teach you that at the meetups? Waaaaah It's not fair he isn't doing what we want him to do? Let's send him a harshly worded letter. We'll teach him. We'll blog about how mad we are and stomp our feet. Yeah, that'll convince em'. LOL.

Hey I like pistachios,

In an alternate reality you can tell us how much worse McCain would have been or how Clinton would have been the same(since you all love searching Daily kos you should be able to find some posts where I pointed out that they weren't the same. She wanted to spend the money on infrastructure while he was a big fan of the first stimulus that didn't work. She wanted to mandate health care. He insists that means telling poor people to fork over their paycheck.)In the actual reality we can tell you that you stuck us with a Reagan loving, gay hating, state secret loving President. Whine away but you bought your progressive President on yourselves and I personally am going to be making sure that everyone knows who bears the blame for him and his policies(and it ain't me).

Twinky P,

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? I'm already grown. Oh, were you trying to be witty because I left off the comma between girl and moron? How adorable. Not.

Let's hear it for the grammar police. It's great that you stand strong and that you don't draw the line on Guantanomo but stand vigilant when it comes to punctuation. How utterly progressive of you.

cwaaah wrote:
"that's what your good at though......progressive whining. Do they teach you that at the meetups? Waaaaah It's not fair he isn't doing what we want him to do? Let's send him a harshly worded letter"
Whining? Sounds like you've got Obama supporters confused with pumas. Every day it's the same tired song:
"Hillary would've elected president...if it wasn't for those meddling voters? Waaah! Let's go on a puma prowl! Waaaah! I'm in favor of this bill passing...wait a minute,what's that? Obama's in favor of it too? Then I'm against it! Waaaah!
Answer me this,cwaaah:
If Obama is such an awful,misogynist excuse for a human being, why would your Saint Hillary work for him? Is she a naked opportunist? Does he have her under mind control like some comic book villain? Or is because she respects Obama and knows that we're much better off with him in office than with your candidate(McCain) I can't wait to hear the puma conspiracy theory answer to that question.

And myiq, the request for specific evidence still stands, nothing Boehlert says here bears any resemblance to the daily screeds and conspiracy theories about Obama & his supporters. You can't delete comments here the way you do at your shit-encrusted liter box.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

I'll let you know when it happens.

Oh, were you trying to be witty because I left off the comma between girl and moron?

Aw, come on. It was funny! Where's your sense of humor?

Oh.

Never mind.

Meddling voters?

Heh, there goes that Obama supporter revisionist history. It wasn't Hillary that had Florida discounted and took delegates from his opponent that she earned in Michigan. At that he was so freakin' scared she would pull it off that Mr. Feminist made sure the first female Presidential candidate didn't even get a roll call vote like every male before her. They twisted the delegates arms. They even went so far as to kick out the delegate that said she would not vote for Obama.

Hillary is a pragmatic politician. She figures she might be able to do some good where she is. Did you really expect her to stomp off and start a new career? It wasn't like she wasn't going to have to deal with people who knifed her in the back in the Senate either? Why don't you write her and ask her? All I can offer is conjecture and point out that her support does not equate my support. The fact that she is there does not make Obama less of a misogynist in my eyes. He's got less female cabinet members then the REPUBLICAN who came before him. His economic adviser is on the record as insisting that "girls aren't good at math." His pig of a frat boy speech writer gets his jollies molesting cardboard cutouts. He has done nada about the conscience clause. Hell, us wimmin' folk are supposed to discuss our reproductive choices with the men folk like pastors and our husbands.

By the way, I've never considered Hillary a saint. You'll are fond of searching. I was super critical of her position on the Iranian guard being a terrorist group specifically since the Saudis and we were arming the Sunni. Don't project. Just because the batch of you didn't allow criticisms on your candidate of choice that doesn't mean the rest of us out here in rational land acted the same.

As for what McCain or Hillary would have done, I'll leave the dwelling in alternate realities(How funny since you are accusing me of conspiracy theories. What conspiracy theory have I given so far? The one where Obama continues with Guantanamo Bay? Oh wait. No. That's REALITY. The one where the army chief says we'll be in Iraq for 10 years? Oh wait, that's reality too. The one where single payer is off the table. Whoops. Still reality. The one where Obama continues the faith based programs of his predecesser? Nope, more reality) to you all with your "Hillary would have done the sames" or "McCain would have been worses." We'll never know because Obama was drug across the finish line by super delegates(that's right he didn't have enough votes from the meddling voters to win Mr. Revisionism) and a bunch of fanatics who pretended that Hillary and her husband were racists.

Heh but isn't it amazing that Obama chose a "racist" for an ambassador? Turnabout is fair play. How do you justify that decision from your progressive President? Or are you gonna admit he ran a smear campaign against the Clintons(with a bunch of progressive cheerleading.)

I can't wait to hear you twist yourself into pretzels trying to explain. It ought to be grand.

Twinky P

I wouldn't give up the day job and go on the comedy circuit if I were you.

He's got less female cabinet members then the REPUBLICAN who came before him.

You might want to wait on that statement until Obama can fully staff his cabinet. Last I checked he has many positions, from each cabinet, yet to be approved by the Senate.

The one where the army chief says we'll be in Iraq for 10 years? Oh wait, that's reality too.

The reality is... is that the Army Chief of Staff made those comments, and made sure he told everybody they were long range plans, if need be. That is the job of the Army Chief of Staff, PLANNING... get it. It is Casey's job to have short and long range plans, and if he wants to keep his job he will PLAN do what Obama wants or be prepared to be replaced. Gates and Obama want to uphold the SOFA agreement. Casey does not make policy.

Casey said several times that he wasn't the person making policy...

You might want to give Obama until Jan. 20th, 2010 on GITMO before making reality statements.

What a fucking freak!

If we are leaving Iraq why would we need need long range plans? Oh that's right we don't plan to leave. Admit it. You got punked and pwned.

As for his cabinet I don't have to give him anything. He has less females then his predecessor. It's a fact. You don't like it whine to him but don't expect me to hold my breath expecting to fill the rest of his vacancies with females. By the way love how you avoided the fact that he has male pigs working for him. If you lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas. It's a quaint little saying you might want to ponder a moment or two.

As for Guantanamo in a year.....I wish him lots of luck. I wonder how much we'll have to pay off the Yemeni to take back the people we incarcerated? Who could have imagined that countries wouldn't be anxious to take back people we incarcerated under the premise they were dangerous? All he needs is a Texas accent and he could be Bush. Who could have imagined indeed.

That's okay though. He's got a low bar with you all. He's got that prerequisite D after his name and apparently that will be just enough. The sweet and delicious irony for the rest of us is we recognize you for what you are and who you are the equivalent of. You're the left's equivalent of Bush's base. You'll make excuse after excuse for him as he disappoints- after all if you didn't make excuses for him and actually made him work for those votes you'd be .....wait for it.....Republican r@tf*ckers.

I'll pick being a freak over being a fool any day of the year and twice on Fridays. I hear the number of independants are growings too. I guess being a freak is gonna be the new black. Enjoy your kool aid. Drink up.

Now, SoS, you know better than to try logic on the li'l girl moron. I mean, the kid can't tell the difference between whining and people laughing at her and her tiny band of spite monkeys. Of course, lacking a sense of humor might have something to do with that.

Hey, girl moron, sweetie, I'm curious, did you laugh at your low IQ friend's "joke" about forcing the NC beauty contestant to perform oral sex? How's the rebranding of puma going? Suggested new name: Xe. Catchy, eh?

I guess being a freak is gonna be the new black.

Racist! Heehee!

If we are leaving Iraq why would we need need long range plans? Oh that's right we don't plan to leave.

I guess you were never in the military... maybe if I say it slower you'll understand... that's... Casey's... job... long... and... short... range... PLANNING!

Obama is 100 times better than bu$h.
Believe what you want freak... you're no different than limbaugh or cheney.