home

TalkLeft is Not a PUMA Site

Big Tent Democrat earlier wrote a post about an article that appeared somewhere today on PUMA supporters. He noted he is not a PUMA supporter.

I do not write about PUMA and will not write about PUMA. Why? Let me make it perfectly clear. TalkLeft is not a PUMA site. With Hillary Clinton no longer seeking the nomination, TalkLeft supports Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for the presidency. PUMA as a movement is irrelevant to me.

Naturally, BTD's post brought out the worst in the comments. Which unfortunately makes it necessary for me to restate yet again what is acceptable and unacceptable commenting here. [More...]

Those who do not support Obama are free to express their views here, with limits.

First, Gratuitous insults, smears and personal venom against the Obamas, as well as race-baiting comments will be deleted.

Commenters may disagree with Obama's policy positions, actions, specific statements, campaign strategy and the like. They can point out his inconsistencies. I'm sure I will have plenty of criticism of all the candidates, including Obama as we go forward. I have no intention of becoming a cheerleader for him.

Commenters may express their intention to vote for a different candidate, but may not use this site as an organizing ground for their preferred candidate. TalkLeft does not allow shilling by commenters for any candidate.

Commenters may not spread or discuss gossip about him or attack him or his wife because they don't personally care for him. Personal venom and character attacks are not allowed.

As is clearly stated on our home page, the commenters do not express the views of TalkLeft.

For those who missed it the first time I wrote it, here is the difference between what's acceptable criticism and disagreeement with a candidate and what is personal venom or hate which is not acceptable.

I'm seeing a lot of comments that go well beyond disagreeing with Barack Obama on issues or criticizing him with respect to matters that reflect on his suitability to be President.

I'm not going to spell out what's okay and what's not. Suffice it to say, TalkLeft and all three of its writers now support Barack Obama for President. He is the Democratic nominee and we are Democrats.

That doesn't mean you won't find criticism of him here. You will. Just as you'll find criticism of almost all our politicans and policy makers and the media (and for Big Tent Democrat that includes bloggers.)

But there's a difference between expressing disagreement with politicians and voicing displeasure with some of their actions and comments, -- and even with questioning their sincerity or suitability for office -- all of which are okay -- and with filling the comment threads with hateful character attacks.

I hope those of you who supported Hillary will take her at her word and transfer your support to Barack Obama. If you don't want to do that, you can still comment here, but not just to trash Barack Obama or his wife. You can't spread falsehoods, like he stole the nomination. He didn't. The Democrats gave it to him. [More...]

If you honestly believe that John McCain is better on some issue, you're free to say so here. If you think he'd make a better President, you are free to say so, so long as you don't constantly chatter about it and try to dominate the threads or annoy other readers.

You may not use TalkLeft as an organizing ground to gain support for McCain. That's not what comments are for. They are for expressing your opinion, consistent with our commenting policy.

...I had my fill of comment moderating during the primary campaign. I'm not going to dwell on comments here any more. I'm just going to ban commenters who violate the rules and in the case of new users, vaporize all their comments and their accounts.

TalkLeft has always allowed comments with all points of view, including those different from our own. It's how they are expressed -- and whether they contain blatant falsehoods or are banal repetitive chatter that determines whether they stay.

As for long-time Obama supporters, if you think I'm going to praise and cheerlead his every step to the White House, you're wrong. I wouldn't do that for my preferred candidate and I won't do it for him. If you personally attack me or any writer at TalkLeft, or the site itself, your comment will be deleted.

....If you find what we have to say worthwhile, by all means, keep visiting and commenting -- you are welcome here whether you agree or not. Conversely, if you find us intolerable or irritating, or if you dislike our commenting rules, the internet is a vast and wide place, and I encourage you to go out and find a site more to your liking.

Comments now closed.

< What Political Cost? | Hillary 's New Video Seeking Contributions to Retire Campaign Debt >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I didn't see a lot of that on that thread. (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    I don't know one person who believes this is a "PUMA site".

    There is no PUMA site anywhere (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    PUMA is not an organization. It is not a movement. It raises no money. It has no alternative candidate.

    What PUMA is - is a mindset.

    It is a mindset of kindred voters not organized in any manner other than sharing individually that mindset of what is good for the Democratic Party longterm.

    Leaving all the individual anger, gripes, concerns out of it in the end it is really a mindset of what is good for the Democratic Party longterm.

    If Obama was not Obama. If he didn't pander, then change - If people really knew when he said he stood for something and he really did - If he wasn't as much dedicated to Right Wing Ideas as he is Left Wing Ideas - If he never uttered the word Post-Partisanship - If he wasn't so damed self-centered - If he never used that dumb ass faux Presidential Shield (lol)...

    Then maybe just maybe...

    Never mind.

    Parent

    You may end up being the most (4.80 / 5) (#185)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    surprised person in the country when you see them surface.

    They have a logo, organized funding, they are getting local "chapters" organized to march in their own cities during the convention, they will do ads and they appear regularly on cable media.


    Parent

    I respectfully disagree (3.40 / 5) (#180)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    Voting for McCain is not going to do ANYTHING except help McCain become president.  Go be a Republican for a day and help re-up our nation for another decade of defacto Dubya.  THAT is the only effect your vote will have if you, ultimately, succeed.  And, irony of ironies, you could not face Hillary Clinton and offer that weak game as reason to cast a vote for McCain.  She would lay you low.  Your own candidate is asking you to help defeat McCain and you are saying, no, I'll go help him.

    Like I said, go, help McCain win.  Help him turn the Supreme Court into the fully right-wing body.  Help him continue U.S. militarism unabated through the century.  Help him keep universal health care entirely out of the debate.  And on and on, go help him do it all.  

    Obama ain't near marginally perfect, but McCain's long record of far-right voting is perfectly clear.  He's about as much of a maverick as a bad cover band.


    Parent

    Oh well! (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    We'll just have to live with ourselves then.

    Parent
    News flash! (5.00 / 8) (#247)
    by angie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:18:28 PM EST
    The voting booth is private. No one gets to tell anyone else how to vote -- this isn't China, ya know. I'm going to vote my conscience and I most certainly am not going to "explain" my vote to anyone. I'm also not going to try to guilt or blackmail anyone into voting "my way" either -- why don't you try that.

    Parent
    These sorts of comments are so tiring (2.33 / 3) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:55:40 PM EST
    Name any Democrat base cause that Obama supports (REAL SUPPORT, NOT WHAT HE SAYS).....

    Go to his voting record or the list of sponsored and co-sponsored bills.  Don't just say things that are blatantly false.

    Parent

    Wait a second (none / 0) (#210)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:15:38 PM EST
    I thought you asked what has he done to support traditional Democratic ideals?

    Now you want 5 things that he has done for the country?  

    Which is it?

    I really have no desire to get into a tit for tat with you about whether Hillary is the worthier candidate.  

    Parent

    You responded to his first question with (5.00 / 6) (#228)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:37:44 PM EST
    Go to his voting record or the list of sponsored and co-sponsored bills.

    So he asked you to name 5 of them. Is your present ingenuous response just a time killer while you do a mad Google search, or are you just trying to deflect and hope that no one out here notices the subterfuge?

    Parent

    Considering (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:36:05 PM EST
    the fact that there are a large number of puma sites out there already I certainly see no need to discuss that here. However, I do like the fact that you and BTD DO hold Obama accountable and are trying to kick his behind into doing the right thing.

    Truthfully, BTD and Jeralyn are some of the very few Obama supporters I respect so when I post here I will obey their rules. Thankfully, I missed the entire PUMA thread anyway.

    Did not even know what PUMA is... (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by citizen53 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    but now that I do, I can say that I agree with the diary.

    I wish, however, the same could be said from the other direction.  In my experience, to voice disagreement with the Obama party line on an issue gets you called a troll these days.  Where's the unity in that?

    Troll Ratings (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by CST on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    Happen to both sides.  For months you couldn't say anything pro-Obama without getting down-rated.  Don't worry too much about it though.  As long as you aren't being offensive you won't be deleted and most people know not to take too much stock in the ratings since they are usually based on people's points of views not the content of the post.

    That being said - I really think troll-rating should only be used on offensive posts and I would "encourage" others to use it the same way.

    Parent

    The experience here is different... (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by citizen53 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    and I should have been clearer that I was speaking in general terms.

    The fact, from my perspective, is that my dealings with many proponents of hope and unity have led me to question what those terms even mean.  I find it somewhat Orwellian that some progressives claim the banner, yet are so intolerant of dissent when it affects them.  

    Parent

    Gotcha (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by CST on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:57:25 PM EST
    I just realized what you were talking about.  Although my post on troll-rating still stands (my proof being my down-rating).

    Just to throw out there - most Obama supporters are not like the ones you find online.

    For me the "hope and unity" meme was all about winning.  They sound good, no dislikes hope, and he comes off as less polarizing.  I am not saying Obama represents these things, but it's not a bad message when you are trying to win the white house.  I have no problem with Obama pushing that meme, it's in his best interest and doesn't really hurt anyone - but progressive bloggers really should've known better and done their job to vet the actual issues not buy into the campaign rhetoric.

    Parent

    Turn off your ability to view ratings..... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:05:34 PM EST
    and you can avoid the whole childish game of 1's and 5's.

    Parent
    Didn't know you could do that.... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:06:25 PM EST
    ...sounds like a GREAT feature.

    Parent
    There is no unity. (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:54:52 PM EST
    (whisper)...but don't tell anyone or say it out loud!

    Parent
    I notice that I have a lot of friends that are (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    PUMAs.  I didn't get to read all of the comments in the thread but everything that I read was respectful.  At this point I can fault nobody for joining the PUMAs.  I do understand though and always did understand that TalkLeft is not a PUMA site.

    I took Jeralyn's post to mean (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    that the thread strayed from the topic, whether Traister's article represented PUMA, and into an argument over PUMA itself.  And got into the types of posts that are not allowed here.  Not that all the posts were disrespectful necessarily.

    Please correct if mistaken, Jeralyn.

    But I agree with TeresaInSnow2, it is very difficult when PUMA is mentioned derogatorily, or factually incorrect statements are made about it, not to want to respond.

    I think discussing either way should be out of bounds.  Just my 2 cents.

    Parent

    yes it dissolved (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:36:23 PM EST
    into the same old personal attacks on Obama.

    Parent
    And we saw again some of the same (5.00 / 9) (#141)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    old, same old untruthful statements about Clinton -- re the Michigan primaries, for example -- from a chatterer here who seems to deflect many a thread, for whatever purpose . . . but we can imagine. . . .

    Parent
    I don't consider myself a PUMA (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    I am just waiting for the VP selection and will go from there. I am not happy, but I have resigned myself as to how it will be. Obama vs McCain. Of course, in some cases, there is instigation that starts a bad dialog. We know those users and I have learned to try and ignore them.

    PUMA vs vigorous debate (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    Frankly a party (or any group) that is all about unity and stifling dissent or debate is on its deathbed. Didn't do well for the republicans and doesn't look good in cat-herding democratic territory.

    While I think we can agree we aren't PUMAs I think it is healthy to encourage debate on the merits of policies, candidates, and other forces on our political and legal life.
    I would hope there is unity in democratic principals.

    That said, I heartily agree with TalkLeft rules, even if I may occasionally stray beyond the lines.

    As I said, I will vote for Obama (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    but I understand anyone who refuses to do so. Their voices must be heard and listened to. What I've read thus far from veteran Obama supporters is that PUMAs must get over it or else we will be handing over the reigns of the nation to McSame. And that we're ridiculous and tiny and nobody likes us.

    Can't get much more persuasive than than, eh?

    Obama has the tools he needs to bring this party together while fighting McCain: He just needs to restate his allegiance to everything McCain stands to take away from us. So far, he has not.

    That really does chap me (5.00 / 11) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    That most often the best that the veteran Obama supporter can offer a PUMA is threats instead of a candidate that earns or deserves their vote.

    Parent
    i dont understand where you come from (2.33 / 3) (#38)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:03:05 PM EST
    You start by saying that you will vote for Obama, then you refer to PUMA as if you were part of it. But the PUMA people make it quite explicit, that the one thing that binds them is that they are NOT going to vote for McCain. So why do you indentify with them?

    Parent
    Some people realize that by arguing with people (5.00 / 13) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM EST
    all you get is arguing.  When you give the words of others some respect instead of denying how they feel or experience something you open the door to eventually find some common ground.  The way that you address things seems to only inflame PUMAs.  I tend to perceive you as someone who has that goal in mind.

    Parent
    ooops (3.66 / 3) (#41)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    soory - what binds them is that they are NOT going to vote for OBAMA, obviusly.

    Parent
    I think that's inaccurate (4.91 / 12) (#52)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    My view is that there is a group of people who are demanding something more than a (D) and "he's not McCain" in exchange for their vote or support. I've talked to people who fully expect to vote for Sen. Obama, but will not donate their money or time, for example. There are many disaffected people out there, each responding in different ways, as is their right.

    Parent
    yeah, but those are not the PUMAs (1.00 / 0) (#124)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:46:47 PM EST
    You sure about that? (5.00 / 7) (#156)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    I think you're defining the group, such as it is, in the way you want to define it. As I understand it, people who identify as PUMAs have a complex set of goals, many of which have nothing to do with Sen. Obama or whether to vote for him or not. Beyond the issue of the November election, I think the broader concerns raised by some of these big cats are very legitimate.

    Parent
    no, the founder and leader (3.66 / 3) (#163)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    of the group defined it in just those words - that the one thing that binds the group together is that they will NOT vote for Obama.

    He qualified slightly by saying that if Hillary is VP, then maybe some would reconsider.

    Parent

    I didn't know I had a leader (5.00 / 7) (#188)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    I guess I'm just a sympathizer and not a card-carrying member.

    Parent
    a question (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    was talkleft ever a crashing the gate site?

    PUMA, as I see it, is a counter-movement of sorts, but it lacks the organizational impetus, it is made up of people who aren't activists at heart.  It may fail as a counter movement because of this, but it may also be underestimated.

    Organizing people from all ages and walks (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    of life isn't as easy as organizing college campuses. It may take longer, but the group seems determined to do what they can.

    Take notice that if the PUMA people are right about Obama, he wins the election, and the country doesn't regain its footing, it is the group that took a deep sigh, and bought into the hold your nose voting methodology who will be begging the PUMAs for their contact list.


    Parent

    it might be nothing more than like minded (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:03:59 PM EST
    people standing in line to vote but that just might be enough. that is why i say don't look down your nose at dissent. listen to it or ignore it but they will be heard in november. that is how the dixiecrats were born and 40+ years of loss of the south to the democrats. of course i won't get into all the reasons. it was more than civil rights. i of course know that kennedy and johnson made the right decision there. the reasons for the division were many.

    Parent
    I used to read all the Left-leaning blogs (4.91 / 12) (#44)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    then shifted to Talk Left almost exclusively while the Hillary bashing peaked, and now I occasionally glance at TL, but mostly read the PUMA blogs as much as I can, for the sense of solidarity it brings me.

    I don't know where this orthodoxy about voting for the candidate just because we're Democrats came from, although I used to accept it myself.

    Now I cannot see the logic of this line of reason, related to party loyalty. I think it's important to be true to ourselves first, and to the party second.

    And this means I will never vote for Obama unless Clinton shares his ticket. And with each day that passes I get closer to casting a vote for McCain.

    And I've voted a Democratic party ballot every year since 1977, but I will never do this again.

    Parent

    I will gladly vote Democrat again (5.00 / 16) (#147)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:59:18 PM EST
    when I see a Democratic party, which would require one that abides by the Democratic party charter, rules, and bylaws, and supports the principles of the Democratic party as stated in its platform.

    If anyone finds that party, please let me know.  

    Parent

    ANY criticism of her as inherintly venomous (5.00 / 14) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:02:26 PM EST
    um, many times it was. She was having her character criticized, not her policies. And her policies really couldn't be criticized too much because Obama was running on "our policies are virtually the same, but I'm new and she's old, evil Washington politics".

    thanks for proving my point (2.71 / 7) (#59)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    now go read the archives of this site, it being actually one of the more restrained pro-Hillary sites, and count up the number of character slurs against Obama. Better charge your calculator batteries first.

    SO there really was a lot of venom, going both ways. And legitimate criticisms too. But fanboys and fangirls on all sides dont care about that. Once minds were made up, there was no more reason to even bother with rational criticisms - it was just team sports all the way.

    Parent

    I wonder if this childishness (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    will ever end.  Tit for tat on and on and on.  Sorry, I'm just tired of it.  I avoided it during the primary and hoped that maybe after the primary was over I could get to experience a different atmosphere.

    Parent
    I think a different point was proven (5.00 / 19) (#65)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    if you realize why there are so many Hillary supporters here in the first place: Nowhere else to go.

    So we were followed by various and sundry folks from Dkos and TPM, etc, etc. We were cornered.

    And what happens when you corner something? It fights back. HARD.

    So I'm not surprised by the strong backlash experienced by Obama supporters here. I'm just surprised that THEY were surprised.

    Parent

    Character slurs? (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:35:44 PM EST
    I bet you can not find one post where that happened.

    You are impugning us again. You are a ridiculous hypocrite.

    Parent

    he's talking about the comments (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:42:04 PM EST
    not our posts. (I think.) And while I deleted hundreds if not more smears, on all sides, I'm sure I didn't get them all.

    Parent
    yes, thank you (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    Obviously,,,,I am talking about the comments.

    Parent
    tben tries this topic deflection (4.42 / 14) (#149)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:01:46 PM EST
    repeatedly, in thread after thread.  In the PUMA thread, he even resorted to the old untruths about the Michigan primary, wasting bandwidth again as his statements were disproved again.

    Please, folks, don't let him do it again to this thread.  Thanks.

    Parent

    Yep. (4.42 / 7) (#151)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    And squeaky repeated another whopper, too.

    How do they think that helps smooth things over?

    It's immature and ridiculous and makes matters worse.

    Parent

    WTF (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:24:00 PM EST
    Nice, and your basis for calling me a liar?  

    Parent
    you know many us who don't necessarily (5.00 / 9) (#134)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    identify ourselves as pumas but are really turned off with the priamary process that just happened. we are turned off by the zings, stings, and arrows from many of the obama supporters. many of us didn't have hillary even on the radar, but the unending sexism and all that went along turned many of us against the whole process. i respect jeralyn's position and appreciate the fact that we can discuss our differences. btd was stating his view of things and he has that right. he and jeralyn both have tried to be fair in a very heated situation. i do feel that dissent is needed and holding politcans' feet to the fire downright necessary. idol worship so to speak on either side be it democrat or republican gets us nothing but serious trouble. it never ends well.

    Parent
    This site has been very clear that it is now (5.00 / 11) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    supporting the Democratic nominee for president. I appreciate the fact that it does not equate support with rationalizing each and every action of the candidate. Abandoning important issues in support of any politician is not IMO good for the country or the party.

    Personally I can't think of any issue more important than protecting the Constitution and the protections it provides to all citizens. It is the basis of all that is American. Also, I can't think of anything more dangerous to our way of life than establishing that any president or any party is above the law.  

    "near-insignificant number" (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:09:05 PM EST
    and what would that be? When does a number become significant enough that it matters? Should numbers not be heard until deemed significant? And by who?

    Best not to bring up PUMA here. (5.00 / 9) (#58)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    Too much high brow condescension.  From it's "irrelevant" to I oppose "PUMAism" with almost no understanding of what it is.  Hillary's supporters have been looked down at enough.  Perhaps it's not a very good topic here.

    perhaps not, but the division in the party is (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:54:15 PM EST
    real. ignoring it won't heal things or make it go away.

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 19) (#60)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    don't interpret this as flaming.

    but you have no, no idea what you're talking about.

    And when I hit you over the head, don't interpret that as me hitting you.

    lovin' Emma right now....nice analogy (4.66 / 9) (#94)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    Although I agree. . . (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    with most of your comment I just have to say that if that isn't a flame, I don't know what is.

    Please Delete my account (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by katiebird on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:24:13 PM EST
    I won't be needing it any longer.

    hehehehe (2.50 / 6) (#71)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    I can read the posts (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by katiebird on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    But, I don't trust myself to comment.

    Parent
    There is a history to that request (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    that I find funny. It's not you.

    Parent
    I actually like the legal stuff as much (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by katiebird on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    as the political.  But being a PUMA I can't comment on the political and NOT being a lawyer I'm not qualified to comment on the legal.

    So my account is now worthless to everyone.

    Parent

    Good lord! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    Not being a lawyer means you're not competent to comment on legal issues?  I though it was the other way around!

    Parent
    Now they tell you. (none / 0) (#250)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    sure you can comment (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    and express your views. Just do it civilly and in accordance with our site rules. I've said all points of view are welcome here.

    Parent
    Errin F? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:31:55 PM EST
    What a nut.

    Parent
    why the giggling? (none / 0) (#85)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:32:13 PM EST
    this. Not really that important.

    Parent
    it appeared as if you were laughing (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:11:25 PM EST
    because someone might be leaving. is that so? please own it if it is. thank you

    Parent
    ah... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    saw the post further up and wondered about that.

    Tho' it did appear a bit ouchy at first w/o context.

    Parent

    That is so funny! (none / 0) (#192)
    by DJ on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:54:33 PM EST
    yeah I know (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    so is dick Cheney.

    This pols are pols thing is fun but it solves nothing.

    Sheep? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:28:13 PM EST
    We must not let our support for our party, innoculate its front runner to the point where he too does not listen to his constituents.

    There is reason to worry, because BO is the head of the party, the DNC, the entire ball of wax. And we see the party echelon in lock step.

    This has already been written about in the media; it's already apparent to many that he isn't about change, that this new found power has resulted in the assurance that he can come out with positions that no one could have ever thought he would support.

    If we believe in the ideals our party has always held, than it's up to us to make sure it's leaders uphold those ideals. Right now, we're getting the moon and giving up the sky.

     

    I think it's a good idea to (5.00 / 19) (#89)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    distinguish between an organized movement on one hand, and on the other, what seems to me to be a large number of people who, independently of each other, reached strikingly similar opinions about the state of the party and the election, and can see that the party and the media have injected a much higher degree of difficulty into deciding how - or if - they will vote.  

    I do not happen to agree with those who blithely express that it is not at all difficult to vote for "the" Democrat, for no other reason than that Democrats are always supposed to be better than the other guys.  And because we have no other choice.  If I were looking to buy a used car and there were only two to choose from and both were in bad shape in different ways, why would I force myself to buy either one - because I have no other choices?  I don't think so; I think walking away says "get some better cars and I might buy one."

    I, for one, am pretty ticked about the fact that a year ago, I thought this was going to be fun, and it has degenerated into something that isn't even close.  

    I am at the point where I see very little value in talk, and much more in action.  I don't send money to a party that has betrayed me, and I don't vote for candidates I can't trust.


    I don't consider myself a member of (5.00 / 11) (#112)
    by Montague on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    PUMA, but I certainly understand much of what they are about.  I won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.  I'm a lifelong Democrat but this primary was just the last straw.  The DNC needs to get the message, or they will never change the way they operate.  And the way they've been operating for my entire voting life has resulted in two Democrats in the White House.  I believe their losing streak will continue this year.

    Edger, stop (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    talking about race-baiting. Did you not see where it will be deleted?

    That is an example (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    of a smear on bill clinton that appears to be acceptible on this site.

    It sets the tone.  When people are talking about venom and criticism I think its relevant.  It is no small matter.  And I believe that if a statement was made about that then other people would be able to take their cue as to whats considered acceptable or not on this site.

    Parent

    no you introduced it and it is (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    off topic to the thread. Racism has nothing to do with this post.

    Parent
    its an example (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST
    of a smear.  Or venom.  That's my opinion.

    It would be difficult to talk about whats acceptable or not by deeming any attempt to delve into that issue BY EXAMPLE as an attempt to change the subject.

    Parent

    Accountability (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    I admire the stand TL has taken. We've had two terms of a president where there was no accountability. There was a stretch were any questioning was paramount to treason! The only voice of sanity came from the progressive blogs. I don't want to see that same level of blind adoration of any politician again, especially from the net root community.

    If someone wishes to vote for McCain (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    for whatever reason they are certainly free to do so.  

    However if they wish to recreate reality by suggesting that McCain is anywhere close to the left of Barack Obama they most certainly deserved to be called out for it.

    It seems (5.00 / 6) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:16:32 PM EST
    that many voters don't see Obama as qualified to be president. And as far as issues go, Obama changes his stances so much that I don't know where he stands. While you may not like McCain's stances at least you know what they are. Who the heck knows with Obama? He seems to be operating on getting people to vote against McCain not for him.

    Parent
    It is beyond ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by independent voter on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:04:54 PM EST
    to state we know what McCain's stands are. Which ones? when he was for it? when he was against it? There are SOOOOO many topics that he has done a complete 180 on in the past MONTH. If you are voting for him, please be truthful as to why. It is not because you know where he stands on the issues, and his conviction is not something worthy of being held up against any other person's conviction as an example of honesty.

    Parent
    I didn't (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:56:35 PM EST
    say I was voting for him. Obama has done a 180 on almost everything. What's the difference? McCain has a record and Obama does not.

    Parent
    OK (3.66 / 3) (#179)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:31:47 PM EST
    So you prefer to vote for someone you KNOW you don't agree with on most issues rather than someone you are pretty does but you have concerns he does not?

    I find that to be odd logic.  

    Parent

    Odd logic? (5.00 / 4) (#238)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:54:35 PM EST
    What I think is that neither Obama nor McCain represent my interests. Is that clear enough?

    Parent
    Something nice about Obama (5.00 / 7) (#160)
    by DJ on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    last week I met a young man who had been at our senatorial convention.  He is a young AA man maybe 20 or so and working at the local store to put himself through college.   He was an Obama delegate.  We spoke carefully about the primary and I congratulated him on Obama's win.  He thanked me and said he thought either candidate would have been good.

    I left thinking how wonderful for him that as a young man he can see an African American man having a chance at POTUS.  I know that must mean a great deal (it would mean a great deal to me as a woman to see that ceiling broken)

    So, although I do not believe Sen. Obama to be qualified for POTUS, I do appreciate what this candidacy means to many folks.  I ask for you Obama supporters to encourage your candidate and your peers to fight for something instead of fighting against Clinton and her supporters.

    Well, (5.00 / 10) (#161)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:13:26 PM EST
    those who became PUMAs did so partly because of the Hillary haters and partly because of their displeasure with the way the primary was handled by the democratic leadership (I use the term loosely.)

    You're entitled, but (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    I was for Obama until the first series of debates showed he had no platform that wasn't copied from someone else. Had he lived up to what my original opinion was, he would still have my support.

    He's now running on Hillary's even though he argued against hers until June 5th.

    So Hillary's is wrong now? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:06:44 PM EST
    Not even close (5.00 / 7) (#225)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:32:11 PM EST
    Just because he stole her talking points doesn't mean he believes in them, or will try to put them into policy.

    Parent
    So much of this obviously (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:02:31 PM EST
    requires a leap of faith.

    You KNOW (like any true believer) that she believes in all those positions, whereas you obviously dont believe Obama does. And McCain, though in most ways worlds away from what HRC claims she stands for, has what going for him? Potential? A nice smile?

    This is what I mean by irrationality.

    Parent

    i think that you totally misunderstand (5.00 / 7) (#189)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    the rationale behind the lack of unity that i fear will send the democrats crashing down. don't underestimate the division in the party. the party leaders have done so and continue to do that. very unfortunate! a lot of thinking is quite rational. what is irrational about distrusting primaries that weren't properly handled? i could go on.

    I was an Edwards supporter (5.00 / 13) (#200)
    by stxabuela on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    Who planned to vote for him even after he dropped out.  And then, the race continued, and Texas mattered--my vote was more than just symbolic.  I listened to both candidates and checked their positions on issues.  I picked Clinton for two reasons: I thought she had a better health care plan, and her speeches told me something concrete about how she planned to implement programs.  

    The sexism began to bother me at the end of the New Hampshire primary, but it grew exponentially worse in February.  And the DNC was silent about it.  And Obama played into it with the "brush off" routine.  Calling the reporter "sweetie" didn't help.

    The final straw was the RBC decision to arbitrarily strip Clinton of four of her delegates and give them to Obama, when Obama had chosen to take his name off the ballot.  The DNC was determined to get the nominee they wanted.  

    My anger is more directed toward the Democratic Party than its chosen candidate.  I have been a Democrat for 36 years, and I currently hold a party office.  However, I have come to the conclusion that my vote, as a woman, is being taken for granted.

    That's why I'm angry, and that's why I plan to skip the top of the ticket in November.  

    a few points (2.00 / 6) (#218)
    by tben on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:24:56 PM EST
    Why does DNC silence affect your opinion of the candidate?

    Why do you take the "brushoff" as some sort of a personal insult. It could not have possibly been clearer that he was "brushing off" attacks, not Hillary as a person or a candidate.

    And how does the awarding of those 4 delegates (with half a vote each - ie. 2 delegate-votes) indicate that the DNC was determined to get the nominee they wanted. Obama won the nomination by well over 100 votes. Those 2 votes had no effect whatsoever on the outcome.

    And, of course, how does helping John McCain do anything but undermine everything you, as a Democrat, must have been fighting for all your life.

    I'm serious here. I am really straining to try to understand this logic.

    Parent

    well, because it is a personal insult! (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:30:16 PM EST
    many of us are not so jaded or cynical that we still don't wish for a fair deal. we don't excuse it as just politics.

    Parent
    For me, (5.00 / 9) (#230)
    by suki on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:41:30 PM EST
    after what happened in 2000, to see the Democrats pull this kind of bs was a huge shock. The fact that it wasn't necessary made it even worse.
    I really believed the Democrats were different.
    I see now I was very naive.
    I don't know if that helps your understanding, but there it is.

    Again, you have no problem with a result (5.00 / 6) (#240)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    achieved by corrupted rules, and some of us do have a problem with it and cannot support a party and its candidate that would do what the Dems did.

    As for marching, picketing, demonstrating -- did I miss someone raising that in this thread?  It seemed to be about going to the polls and voting.  Let's not get hyperbolic about all this. . . .

    A comment intervened; this comment (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    is for independent voter.  I entirely agree with suki.

    Parent
    For the thinking person (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by chopper on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:51:15 PM EST
    PUMA or no PUMA, wouldn't a thinking person wonder how an organization as large as the DNC could make a decision, find a location, prepare legal documents including corporate leases, set up insurance, settle with federal, city, county, and state offices, move and furnish, maybe remodel, set up utilities, financial structures, and I'm sure much more that I'm not aware of all in 8 working days?

    That sounds incredible to people who have been involved in this type of project.

    Yet, the DNC-RBC settled the FL-MI problem by taking half of Hillary's delegates and giving Obama MI delegates +4 even though he wasn't on the ballot on MAY 31, and DNC-Obama announced their move on JUNE 12.  That gave them 8 working days to set this all up.

    I certainly don't want to accuse anyone of a conspiracy, but if you have a moment just give it some thought.

    What so wrong with supporting PUMA (4.91 / 12) (#33)
    by Saul on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    The fact that there are man angry women and men out there who supported Hilary is not a bad thing.  In fact they just might be the ones that bring out what was really wrong with this nomination process.  I still say that these angry women and men will make a much bigger difference in the GE than many think they will.  They are a force to be reckon with and paid attention to. I doubt if they will just go away.  It will get worse especially if Obama and it looks that way that he will not pick Hilary as VP.  Remember all the post that were posted about the unity ticket here on TL being so critical to this election.  Remember those.

    I know Obama is the nominee so for many it will be ok my horse did not win so I will just support the winner.  But for many that will be very hard to do.
    Ok Obama did not steal the nomination but you got to admit he fooled plenty of voters to vote for him on the fact of who he really was and as time passes many of those voter learn more and more each day about who  Obama really is  and they  would not vote for him today if they had their druthers and that is a big thing to be angry about.  

    Jeralyn didn't say that supporting PUMA (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:11:33 PM EST
    is wrong.  She just said that that isn't her choice of action and this is her site.

    Parent
    In my defense (4.75 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    I should have used a different title. Actually, that is a pretty bad defense.

    But my post was not really about PUMAs. It was about what I liked in that article.

    But I do oppose PUMAism. I said so right in my post.

    Well, I'm from Florida and Obama (4.63 / 11) (#64)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    and his supporters suppressed my vote, and that's enough reason to vote for McCain, if you ask me.

    I used to care about issues -- no more -- I don't care any more about Roe v. Wade and all those other issues -- I just want to live in a country where my vote is counted, and Obama stepped on us and I will not forget it.

    And I'm angry enough at Obama and the DNC to vote for McCain out of protest. You see, it really winds me up to only be 1/2 a vote.

    So, no, I will not vote for Obama just because he's the so-called candidate -- and every time I discuss this folks it further annoys me, and I come away considering writing a check to McCain, as well.

    And I'm not alone, EVERYONE I know is angry and really not in good mood with the DNC and Obama.

    lol (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    its ironic too because you are mad at the DNC for only counting florida 1/2.

    so you will vote for McCain because the RNC cut florida by half also remember?

    but at least you admit your stance isn't based on silly things like issues

    Parent

    I never said issues were 'silly' - just not as (5.00 / 12) (#104)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    important as my vote. And I am not concerned about the RNC's actions, that argument is inherently illogical, since I have been a registered Democratic and active campaigner since I first voted.

    And you can practice your mocking repartee, but it doesn't impress me and I am not going to vote for Obama, just because you would like to hold my vote hostage to the 'issues' I formerly fought for.

    You see, I was motivated before, but if you steal or suppress my vote, I will not say, 'Thanks for kicking me in the teeth, here's my check' like others seem to have done.

    Parent

    I'm not ready to vote McCain (4.66 / 3) (#155)
    by Montague on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    but I won't vote for Obama and I'll sure never give the DNC another penny.  I also returned the Obama fundraising thing with a big "Take me off your mailing list because I will never give you any money" written across it.  

    Parent
    The Democrats had a provision that said (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    if they could prove they had done all they could to stop the Republican leadership from changing the date of the vote, they would not be punished.

    The RBC threw out their proof to make sure FL voters couldn't have their full vote.

    The Republicans did this with full knowledge they were cutting their votes in half, but they also have a winner takes all system. They were gaming the process to give their chosen candidate a sure win.


    Parent

    Correction; (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    They were gaming the process to give their chosen candidate a sure win.

    Should be: They weren't gaming...

    Parent

    I lived in FL (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:32:25 PM EST
    for many years.  While there are people there expressing the sentiment you describe--I know a lot of people whose anger at the FL situation is directed at the state legislature who allowed this to happen (both the Rs who orchestrated it and the Ds who voted along with it).  They would have been angry had the full delegation been reinstated after being promised the primary would not count (whether or not they went to the polls anyway).

    Parent
    Can't say any of those folks live on my street (5.00 / 9) (#107)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:40:42 PM EST
    since we're thinking about what to do with traitors like Gelber and Wexler, who ignored their constituents and rammed Obama through.  I've never hold one person in FL say they were angry at the state -  we don't expect anything out of them -- they're the GOP enemy, after all.

    But Democrats who betray us are a different story, as you will see in November.

    Parent

    Nor mine. (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Amiss on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Maybe you and Mark (none / 0) (#165)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:17:27 PM EST
    live on the same street! ;)

    Anyway, as I said, I know people who feel the way you and Mark do, but I also know people who feel very differently.

    Parent

    Nobody "suppressed" your vote. (3.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    Vote suppression is a serious (and criminal) thing, and nothing of the kind happened in FL.  You folks got caught up in an idiotic party snafu and screwed over pretty bad, but your votes weren't "suppressed."  

    They were, within the (IMO pretty stupid) rules, counted correctly, and nobody conspired to prevent people from going to the polls.

    Parent

    I understand your point, but it's arguable (5.00 / 10) (#173)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    as it would seem that telling voters their votes won't count could have the impact of suppressing votes -- and then switching to counting the votes for only half as much . . . but at least Florida voters did not have done to them what Michigan voters did.

    I suspect that scholars are trying to come up with new terms to describe what the Democratic party did.

    For now, how about party suppression?  It may be a useful term -- as it seems that the party's actions are suppressing a segment of its support.  Of course, another term for that is simply stupidity on the part of a party.

    Parent

    Do you dispute (5.00 / 8) (#219)
    by DJ on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:26:12 PM EST
    that voter suppression was happening when the media and democratic leaders were telling voters that the contest was over, that there was no  chance Clinton could win because of "the math"?

    Parent
    well then (2.41 / 12) (#66)
    by gorby on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    I used to care about issues -- no more --

    ok, just checking. that's what i assumed was true of most of the PUMA crowd.

    Parent

    So, you "assume" your (5.00 / 16) (#76)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:28:42 PM EST
    "assumption" is correct based on one person?

    I'm not voting for Obama and one of the reasons IS issues. Lack of experience and qualifications is another huge one. . . .

    Parent

    really? (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    you're okay with clipping out a few words from that post to reinforce your perception?

    Parent
    Actually, (5.00 / 16) (#84)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    it is about issues, this issue in particular for lots of folks:

    I just want to live in a country where my vote is counted, and Obama stepped on us and I will not forget it

    Counting every vote fairly is the sine qua non of democracy.  Yet, we're being asked, expected, even browbeat to disregard this fundamental democratic issue in order to vote for the candidate who ... violated this fundamental principle.

    Voting fairness, the "without which there is not" democracy.  How can we trust that other democratic principles will be upheld, much less vigorously pursued, when this fundamental principle has already been tossed overboard in the interests of Sen. Obama and his DNC backers?

    Parent

    In 20+ years of voting (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    this is the FIRST time my primary EVER mattered.  Somehow I didn't let that affect my decision on who to vote for in November.

    I just don't get this argument AT ALL.  Except for those who use it to further an different agenda entirely.

    Parent

    The principle of our votes counting (5.00 / 12) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    is fundemental to democracy.  You are blowing smoke into the argument.

    Parent
    Primaries are inherently undemocratic (2.14 / 7) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    Different states are treated differently.  Some people are given special super voting rights.  In most cases only a handful of states even matter.

    You guys are trying to create some sort of violation of rights that never existed in the past.

    Parent

    More smoke blowing (5.00 / 4) (#251)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:27:12 PM EST
    Apples to Oranges. nt (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    I don't see your comment as responsive (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:47:06 PM EST
    at ALL.


    Parent
    Explain to me what would have (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by independent voter on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    been different has the DNC fully seated all thedelegates from Michigan and Florida EXACTLY as the ballots were cast. Everything I looked at stated that Barack Obama still would have prevailed and still would have received the nomination. You do not like how it ended, and neither do I, but how would the outcome have changed even if we pretend no one in the whole state of Michigan supports Barack Obama?

    Parent
    I think a big difference (5.00 / 10) (#212)
    by suki on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    would be that a lot of people would feel like it was a fair win.

    Parent
    Like the 2000 count (5.00 / 11) (#220)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    How would it have been different? It would have been like how we all would have felt had the US Supreme Court allowed the vote count in Florida, and Bush had legitimately won the count. As suki said, it would have been fair.

    Parent
    Not a good example. The (1.00 / 3) (#224)
    by independent voter on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:31:00 PM EST
    actual outcome of the race might have changed in 2000. That just was not going to happen this time around, so again, I am at a loss for the outrage about "stolen votes". The outrage about sexism to a great degree I empathize with.

    Parent
    OK, I think its a very good example (5.00 / 7) (#235)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    but YMMV.
     Let's try a hypothetical. Suppose that as we get to the general election day in November, John McCain is significantly ahead in the polls. He's so far ahead that it is nearly impossible for Obama to come back and win. On the Monday before the election Bush declares that he's cancelling the election and appointing McCain as the next President of the US. Remember, in this hypothetical McCain is virtually assured of winning the Presidency anyway. Do you see any problem with Bush voiding the Constitution, when the net result, McCain being the next President, would be exactly the same? If you do, then apply that standard to the DNC as regards its own charter. If you don't, well then, I think we are too far apart to understand each other's point of view.

    Parent
    You justify ends by corrupt means (5.00 / 14) (#237)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:52:39 PM EST
    and I do not.  That's the difference.  I am not discussing delegate counts; I am discussing the process by which they were derived -- as when a process is corrupted, any discussion about the result is problematic.

    I do not support a corrupt party.  Others do.  That's their problem, their party now, too.

    Parent

    Not The System In America (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    And never was the system for the party to pick it's nominee. The way it is set up is that the SD's can pick anyone they want to, irrespective of whether or not they even ran or got one vote.

    When you throw in caucasus, delegates, electoral college, gerrymandering, your precious system is out the window.

    I think that it is disingenuous that you participated with your eyes wide open but because you did not get your vote to be the nominee you are all up in arms about your vote being counted. I voted for Hillary and am OK with my party's choice.

    Sounds like you have double standards and want some special treatment.

    Parent

    You are ignoring that the system (4.91 / 12) (#175)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:27:07 PM EST
    was corrupted for the sake of one candidate.  There is the system on paper -- in rules, bylaws, even the party charter -- and then the de facto system that was perverted by the party.  And it is the latter that is the problem for many former Dems.

    Parent
    This is simply false (1.80 / 5) (#181)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    Even if Hillary was given every single vote in Florida and Michigan and Obama was given none in Michigan he would STILL have been the delegate leader.  

    Hillary supporters wanted the superdelegates to ignore that and endorse Hillary.  

    Let's not reinvent history.

    Parent

    So this is the new defense? (5.00 / 13) (#186)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:47:23 PM EST
    Its OK that the DNC violated their charter in order to give votes to Obama because he would have won anyway? You've got it exactly backwards. If Obama could have won anyway, and I think its likely he could have, why in h@lls name should the DNC violate their charter when it wasn't even necessary to do so to get their preferred outcome? This is what is so disheartening about what the Democratic Party has become. It threw away its dignity for nothing.

    Parent
    This isn't a defense (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:53:05 PM EST
    It is a statement of fact.  

    Whether the DNC or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton could or could not have done something differently is a matter of speculation.

    What is NOT a matter of speculation was that Obama had the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary no matter how you count it.

    So the claim that the system was corrupted to benefit Obama was false and it will remain false even if my comments gets low rated.

    Parent

    No, your point is just (5.00 / 10) (#201)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    that the system did not NEED to be corrupted in order to benefit Obama. The system was corrupted. The Committee took delegates from one candidate(Clinton) and gave them to another(Obama). Just because its entirely possible that he didn't need the help does not negate the fact that they corrupted the system for his benefit.

    Parent
    The race was over by that time (1.00 / 1) (#205)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:10:19 PM EST
    They felt that some sort of middle ground needed to be found.  Right or wrong, it had nothing to do with corrupting the system.

    Parent
    So now you are excusing corruption (5.00 / 12) (#213)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:21:10 PM EST
    as some sort of "middle ground". Its not. It was corruption, plain and simple, made all the worse by the fact that it was just a blatant power play that wasn't even necessary to win the primary for Obama.  


    Parent
    Except that she would have had (5.00 / 8) (#214)
    by denise on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    the momentum early on, so we don't know how the whole thing would have played out. I think it might have made a big difference.

    Parent
    You are dishonest. I said nothing false (5.00 / 7) (#236)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    and you are raising points that I did not raise, then you are claiming that I said anything about them.

    You are inventing my comment history.  Stop it.  It's just stoopid for you to keep doing this sort of crap that all can see, Fly.  Have you no dignity?

    Parent

    Wow, condescension, that's new. (5.00 / 14) (#86)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM EST
    I'm persuaded -- great argument.

    No wonder the PUMA supporters are so put off.

    It still won't get my vote, and I certainly won't part with any cash again, except to retire Hillary's debt.

    Parent

    I think the word "PUMA" (4.50 / 12) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    should be banned from this site, because for me, when someone mentions it in a negative fashion, I have the knee jerk reaction of defending it.  I can't help it.

    For many of us, it's our version of the Boston Tea Party, of Susan B. Anthony, of Rosa Parks.

    Yeah but (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    Puma makes cool shoes!!

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    and I can jump higher when I play kickball and play on the monkey bars! :-P

    Parent
    That may be a really good idea (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    Then again maybe not though (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:55:31 PM EST
    What do you do if the PUMAs have something newsworthy occur that deserves a post?

    Parent
    Exactly my feelings! (none / 0) (#28)
    by mogal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    That comparison may (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    be rousing to some, but conflating those very different events as if it meant something useful is about as clear thinking as the "good reasons" (lets hear them) for supporting a McCain presidency.

    Parent
    The inability to see the comparison (5.00 / 10) (#159)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    is informative in itself.

    Revolutions do not come from conformists.  Thus, those who expect revolutionaries to look alike could be the ones surprised come November.

    Personally, I am particularly fond of the disguise of the Quaker schoolteacher -- but a revolutionary she was, as the woman who rewrote the Constitution.

    I am sure that she would have a few apt words to say about a so-called Constitutional law prof who does not defend the Constitution.      

    Parent

    Obama could have (5.00 / 8) (#166)
    by pie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:18:27 PM EST
    received incredible support from the undecideds if he had taken the right stand on the FISA issue.  He would have sown leadership and courage. Instead, his agreeing with the "compromise" made us all groan and further doubt his sincerity and principles and willingness to fight for us.

    I guess that's why his supporters feel the need to dredge up all the nonsense from the primary.

    Parent

    Im talking (none / 0) (#194)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:58:48 PM EST
    about different historical (not hysterical) contexts and the historically unique events that make them not about expecting so-called revoloutionaies to "look alike", whatever that means.

    Parent
    Please explain (none / 0) (#197)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:03:58 PM EST
    what would be "revoloutionary", in any meaningful constructive sense, about a McCain presidency. Take as much space as you want.

    Parent
    i believe the question asked of you was (5.00 / 6) (#208)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:14:35 PM EST
    why vote for obama? i don't see it answered. there is plenty of space for you also.

    Parent
    I'll take a stab at that one gladly (none / 0) (#215)
    by CST on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    If you want fair pay for women - vote Obama (see TChris's post for more on that one)

    If you believe in Habeus Corpus - vote Obama (you know, that pesky supreme court ruling McCain called the "worst in history" that granted detainees the right to a fair trial)

    If you believe that the burden of taxes falls too heavily on the lower and middle classes - vote Obama

    For a start.

    Parent

    yeah well can you show if obama will (5.00 / 8) (#221)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    really support that? i most sincerely hope you are right, but frankly i haven't seen him take any real action that shows me he will from his record in the ill legislature, congress or the campaign.

    btd has done a number of diaries on just this subject by the way.

    Parent

    There Is This (none / 0) (#239)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    Freedom of Choice Act

    "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

    The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.


    link

    During his meeting with Catholic leaders last Friday, Sen. McCain reminded Philadelphia Catholics of his pro-life voting record and emphasized that he would "maintain that commitment" if elected president.

    Deal Hudson, one of the leaders present at the meeting, informed CNA that when it came to McCain vetoing FOCA, "Nobody asked him that question. My view is that, of course, he would veto it."

    link

    Parent

    PUMA (1.00 / 6) (#6)
    by gorby on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:43:10 PM EST
    is, dare i say, a huge myth, as is above talk about divided Democrats.

    Look, this was an intensely close primary. But even at the height of tensions - during key primaries when voters were asked as they left the booth - only 25 percent of HRC supporters said they wouldnt back Obama.

    Compare that to 51 percent of McCain supporters who said they wouldn't back Bush in 2000, but virtually all of them did, and Bush won. ("won").

    PUMA is a small group, over-amplified by the internet and certain influential HRC supporters in the media. they are a step below a footnote to history, and will soon be forgotten

    nothing more to say (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:47:18 PM EST
    about it then.

    Parent
    No comment....since we can't (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    comment.

    Parent
    Yes, we are imaginary (5.00 / 18) (#21)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:54:48 PM EST
    that is why the previous thread filled up with our posts.

    Parent
    you're imaginary (3.66 / 3) (#48)
    by gorby on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:07:54 PM EST
    in an electoral sense. ron paul supporters thought they were putting him in the white house based on evidence like "but we fill up comment threads!"

    as a percentage of voters, that means exactly diddly, as Paul found out

    Parent

    President Gore . . . . . (5.00 / 10) (#55)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    You're comparing (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    18 million voters to how many Ron Paul gained?

    Parent
    You're comparing 18 million voters (none / 0) (#168)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:18:44 PM EST
    to the number of PUMAs there are out there?

    I'd say the RP-PUMA comparison is much closer.  Most of Clintons primary voters liked both candidates, as did most of Obama's voters.

    Parent

    You're not getting that it's not just about (5.00 / 10) (#174)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    the candidate, Clinton, etc.  A lot of us also are unwilling to support a corrupt party anymore.

    Parent
    Kinda funny how you reached that conclusion (1.00 / 5) (#178)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    without any evidence of, ya know... corruption.  I guess "corruption" means "any process not resulting in my preferred outcome" now.

    Parent
    Actually (4.80 / 5) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    I believe the number is estimated to be between 5 and 8 million voters. It's based on the number of voters in exit polls that said they wouldn't vote for Obama and the fact that polls have him holding about 78% of the party.

    Parent
    Alright. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:29:38 PM EST
    I'll take your numbers at face value.

    Obama's missing 22% of the party, you say.  McCain's missing 15% of his, roughly, the majority of whom are Paulites -- let's say 10% of the GOP (roughly what Paul pulled in the primaries).

    Your 18 million is half the party, right?  Well, the 22% from above is a lot closer to 10% than it is to 50%.  So the number of PUMAs is closer to the number of Paulites than it is to 18 million.  That's my only point -- a mathematical statement.

    Yeah, there's a difference in party registration numbers, but not enough of one to make up the gap.

    Parent

    and important fact is that the repubs (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    are not as divided as the democrats. they'll be more like to come home to the party than democrats.

    Parent
    All 36% Of Them (none / 0) (#227)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:37:39 PM EST
    Versus the 55% who identify with the Democratic party.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 7) (#233)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:45:07 PM EST
    but when you lose almost 1/4 of the party and independents, it doesn't matter about how people are identifying if you can't get them to vote for you.

    Parent
    Lose Them? (2.50 / 2) (#243)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:57:07 PM EST
    Wrong. This is current. The bleeding is over.

    Parent
    A handful of votes in Florida in 2000 (5.00 / 9) (#128)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    is why we have President Bush instead of Gore.

    A fraction of a percent in Ohio in 2004 is why he got reelected.

    Parent

    If the election is close (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    then it will only take a small group, no matter what their name is, whether organized or not, to tilt the EV one way or another.

    Comparing the percentages in 2000 (for Republicans) to this year for Democrats (notoriously less lockstep than Republicans) is not good evidence.

    25% of nearly 18 million is more than 4 million votes.  Bush won in 2004 by less than that.

    Parent

    How do you know? (5.00 / 7) (#209)
    by denise on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    Myself, I don't have the foggiest idea how many PUMA people there are.

    I for one have not told anyone that I am one & don't intend to ever, except in blogs, where I can't be identified by anyone I know. I definitely wouldn't tell a pollster.

    Parent

    Wishful Thinking (none / 0) (#50)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:08:50 PM EST
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#139)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    Perhaps not.

    Parent
    Thanks, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#3)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    What went from a discussion of a Salon article went, well, south and it went fast.

    and I cleaned some of (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    the comments.

    Parent
    That's probably why everything (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    was very respectful that I read.

    Parent
    Yeah I missed the thread first time around... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM EST
    ...and when I went back to read it, it seemed okay.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    for the link.

    I object to TChris downrating ... (none / 0) (#229)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    ... this comment, especially in a thread that invites PUMA perspective.

    I've done my best to comprehend and comply with site standards. I don't see that this violates them, or even that it is offensive in any reasonable way to readers who disapprove.

    I simply assert -- contra the claims that there are no logically possible alternatives -- that certain arguments exist, and reserve the right to take them up (not here, BTW) if and when they become timely.

    Some PUMAs will vote for McCain, some won't. None of them that I know of admire McCain. Anyone who claims to have caught PUMAs in a logical trap should examine the logical construction of these snares more carefully.

    it's your signature (none / 0) (#234)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    it's shilling for PUMA, just like "McCain '08" is shilling for McCain.

    Parent
    Um ... (none / 0) (#245)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:08:03 PM EST
    Could someone please tell me what PUMA is?

    I think it started on (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by suki on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:15:19 PM EST
    the Confluence site (could be wrong about that) and it means, Party Unity My A$$.
    Now several blogs have joined and a variety of people are involved.
    Hope that helps.

    Parent
    oh (5.00 / 6) (#248)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:20:18 PM EST
    Well. There it is!

    Um, I think I might be a PUMA, but I'm not angry --- just tired, oh so tired, and somewhat annoyed that I ventured into politics thinking they might be any different than I ever assumed they were.

    But don't tell anyone. It'll be our little secret.

    Parent

    I'm a Democrat (none / 0) (#253)
    by northeast73 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:10:08 AM EST
    Who is voting for McCain.  And gave him money.

    There...I said it.

    Now shame me.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#256)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST