Is This What "PUMA" Stands For?

by atdleft, Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:30:47 PM EST

(Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

As Democrats, we should all agree on certain things. We should all agree on social justice. We should all agree on the health and welfare of our people and our planet. We should all agree on an economy that works for everyone. Oh yes, and we should all agree to support candidates who support our values. We definitely shouldn't be agreeing to attack our own!

So what's wrong with these supposed "Democrats" supporting these right-wing smears? Follow me after the flip for more...

I was flabbergasted this morning to see this in my inbox from Western CPAC...

The Western Conservative Political Action Conference (WCPAC) announced today that author and political strategist Floyd Brown has agreed to speak at this year's conference, October 10th and 11th at the Radisson Hotel in Newport Beach California.

The Obama campaign has named Brown enemy number one. Senator Barack Obama recently said "527s pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence and we've seen them - there was an ad, one in South Dakota by Floyd Brown ... I don't think that I am off the wall here to say that you know a lot of outside groups that are potentially going to be going after us hard..." [...]
 
"An old right-wing attack dog has returned with a new target: Barack Obama."--CNN

"Brown has stature among devoted conservatives that almost matches his physical heft (6 ft. 6 in. and 240 lbs.)" --TIME [...]

Brown has considerable experience with political campaigns. Brown's most recent endeavor is the creation of the website: www.exposeobama.com, which seeks to educate voters on Democratic Presidential nominee Barak Obama.

"Floyd brings a wealth of knowledge on political campaigns" said Jim Lacy Chairman of Western CPAC. "As we gear up for this November's election, it will be great to hear his perspective on the way the race is shaping up and what issues we, as conservatives, should be paying attention to leading up to Election Day."

Other confirmed speakers at this year's Western CPAC include radio talk show host and eldest son of Ronald Reagan, Michael Reagan; Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore; and anti-tax leaders Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Lew Uhler of the National Tax Limitation Committee.

And you know what made me feel worse? The PUMAs are basically signing on to the same agenda. These supposed "Democrats" are now doing the GOP's bidding for them. I'm sure Hillary Clinton herself must be repulsed by this. I know I am, as well as many other Hillary Clinton Democrats.

 

How can they claim to be "Democrats" when they are working hand-in-hand with the GOP? How can they claim to be "Hillary Clinton supporters" when they are working actively against what Hillary herself supports? How can they claim to be "progressive" when they are working to undermine the progressive movement?

 

You know, I used to be friends with some of these people, so it pains me to say this... But now, I have no choice. "PUMA" is nothing more than a FRAUD! They do nothing but defile Hillary's legacy when they act in her name to give aid & comfort to the GOP enemy.

 

I've had it with "PUMA", their faux support of Hillary, & their siding with GOP troublemakers against Barack Obama. I hope all of you have as well. I hope we've all had it to the point where we're all ready to action.

 

Let's fight the smears. Let's say no to "PUMA" and yes to democracy. Oh yes, and let's volunteer & donate to ensure that we win over these GOP trolls. :-)

 

 

 




Tags: PUMA, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democrats, progressive values, GOP trolls (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 338 Comments :: Post a Comment


Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (2.00 / 17)

Go for it! :-)


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:31:23 PM EST

Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (none / 0)

seriously, is this any worse then diaries about what someone heard on Flush or O'Lielly's shows? viewing helps generate ratings for them (LOL if you think your cable box is not reporting it!) so the diary writers in question do not have clean hands...


by zerosumgame on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (none / 0)

i left out "either"


by zerosumgame on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (2.00 / 3)

I disagree. nothing wrong in finding out what others are thinking. If you feel so strongly, you do not have to click on it.

I had to go Alegre's Corner for some laughs recently. ANd on that site, she has links to this radio she did. Now that site is even more hilarious. They actually have a PUMA sound effect with some lady saying "NO WE WONT NOOO.... WE.... WONT"


by Pravin on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (2.00 / 1)

OMG, I listened to that too.  I nearly pissed myself laughing.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (none / 0)

yawn


by Newport News Dem on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What the hell does "PUMA" mean...? (none / 0)

I've seen it used only on MyDD and for a while I thought you were talking about the shoes, but I'm obviously wrong. What does "PUMA" mean?


by potus2020 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:10:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the hell does "PUMA" mean...? (2.00 / 1)

Party Unity My Ass


by BlueinColorado on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTH does "PUMA" mean...? This.. (none / 0)

PUMA  

DOA


by Mae Scott on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the hell does "PUMA" mean...? (2.00 / 1)

It's a political action group, mostly made of netizen bloggers. They've claimed it stands for "People United Means Actions" but it was in fact coined from "Party Unity My Ass."  They are a bunch of folks who rejected the call to reunify the Democratic party behind Barack Obama after Hillary Clinton's concession of the nomination. Their motives range from credible to ludicrous and their behavior from reasonable to rancid. As usual with any group, the loudest and most hate-filled members are the ones whose voices are primarily being heard.

Unlike many others here, I have some sympathy for them. I've never been with them, and I will support Obama, but Hillary was my candidate in and some ways always will be. So I understand some of what's driving the less crazy of them.

But mostly I wish people would just ignore them and move on to bringing down McCain. I don't think the PUMAs, at least the loudest ones, are politically numerous enough to do anything but make noise. They certainly aren't worth devoting entire diaries to. Sigh.


by SuGeAtARC on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:59:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (none / 0)

You quote a random email from random Republicans that has zero connection to PUMA, and say they're the same thing?  

WTF?  That is so dishonest, and you know it.


by daria g on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (none / 0)

Long ago I renamed them "Selfish Obnoxious Whiners" or, since they love the use of acronyms, "SOW" for short.

I still insist that if we spend so much time focusing on them, they will flourish, and if we insist on shutting them out, they will wither.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:03:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is This What "PUMA" Stands For? (2.00 / 13)

Fuck 'em.

I've seen enough to convince me that the organization itself (not disaffected Hillary supporters generally, of course) is peopled with deranged folks who simply do not understand how the Internet works.

The Internet is a dangerous place for these people.  It has allowed them, empowered them, spurred them to a level of paranoid insanity I can barely fathom.

Read Alegre's Corner and try not to cry.  They actually think we intend to visit physical violence upon them.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:40:32 PM EST

I know... (2.00 / 8)

I used to consider Alegre a good friend. I still appreciate what she did to help me back when I was a lonely Hillary supporter on DKos. But now, we've gone on separate paths. And when I go to that place and other "PUMA" sites now, I just cry. I don't know what's happened to them, other than they're letting themselves be fooled by the GOP.


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 1)

People unimpressed by mediocre analysis

PUMAs are not pro-McCain by and large, but pro-Clinton (or even pro-Edwards) who think, in the words of the Washington Post's David Broder:

No one in recent decades has emerged as the party standard-bearer from so truncated a political career: four years in the U.S. Senate, during which he has yet to lead on any major domestic or foreign policy issue, preceded by largely anonymous service in the Illinois state Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102545. html

Broder's a Pulitzer winner.  I think I'll go with his analysis over yours.


by strongerthandirt on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 11)

I was just logging on to comment that one of the PUMAs' biggest boosters is Neil Cavuto (I was just reading through the comments at SoCalDarlin's house of hate.... she's nuttier than even I thought).

Having one of you cite David Broder is almost as funny.

Who hates the Clintons more than David Broder? What establishment media figure did more, is doing more, than Broder to promote Newt Gingrich, defend Kenneth Starr, elect and re-elect George W Bush, to save Joe Lieberman, to promote the myth of John McCain, than David Broder?


by BlueinColorado on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gimme a break! (2.00 / 8)

Broderella HATES Hillary and he HATES Democrats in general. He's one of the biggest Bush apologists still (wrongly) considered "respectable" by the DC establishment & the corporate media. If Broderella says it, I don't believe it.


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gimme a break! (2.00 / 2)

"This is our place, and they wrecked it."
-David Broder
by BlueinColorado on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 3)

Actually, strongerthandirt, I would take YOUR opinion over David Broder's.  He bats at or aroun 0.000.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 2)

"He bats at or aroun 0.000"

Wait...he moonlights as Andruw Jones?

(Just a joke for all you baseball fans out there)


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 4)

The argument here is not that Obama is a better choice than Hillary or that Hillary supporters shouldn't feel upset that a less experienced candidate beat her.  Those are valid complaints.  It's not valid to take that and then vote against your own policies because you are pissed off.  That's just dumb.  Don't vote if you just can't stomach it.  But voting for McCain (unless you are really a centrist and see him as closer to your ideas) out of spite is irrational and stupid.


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:07:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (none / 0)

It's not valid to take that and then vote against your own policies because you are pissed off.

Haven't you been paying attention? That's precisely the point. Either way, we are voting against our own policies. I'm not voting for either one of them. The Republican Party worked from the right and from the left to knock out the one candidate they don't control. It was very slick. You all fell for it. We're asking you to see through it before it's too late.


by SophieL on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 2)

Ahhhh, so it's all a big conspiracy is it?  Mmmmkay.

(whistles, and gives SophieL a wide berth)


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 2)

The idea that the Republican Party worked to eliminate Clinton so they could face Obama is, to my mind, a joke and completely contrary to everything I saw in the primaries.  FoxNews, Murdoch, RedState, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, FreeRep--every one of them started bashing Obama early and often while softpedaling Clinton.  There's no question who they'd have rather faced and who they felt most sure of beating, and it wasn't Obama.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (none / 0)

A vote is a vote is a vote, regardless of your opinion on its validity or intelligence.  Sorry!  It counts just as much as a special, enlightened vote.  Some of us may believe that Obama would set back progressive policies much more than McCain ever would, because we would all oppose McCain, whereas Obama under the guise of being a Democrat would backtrack on his promises and sell us out to pander to centrists and Republicans.  It's happening right now.


by daria g on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:46:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 2)

It's really astonishing to hear someone say this.  Many did not support Clinton precisely because they firmly believed-- based on good evidence from both her words and votes --that she would do precisely what you're suggesting Obama would do.


by Philoguy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:51:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing PUMA stands for (2.00 / 1)

You're really citing Broder?  Um, you do realize he's a rightwing political pundit and therefore has an axe to grind for his own agenda and is less than objective, don't you?


by Philoguy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:48:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Broder is a laughing stock (2.00 / 1)

the very definition of an out of touch DC pundit.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know... (1.33 / 9)

Oh, for God's sake, Andrew, turn off the faux tears.  You know damn well Alegre is a Democrat and in no way aligned with the GOP or its dirty tricksters like Floyd Brown.   She's using her talents and dedication to see that Hillary and her 18 million supporters have a voice at the convention through a ballot and roll call vote.  Hillary deserves nothing less.  Shame on you and your pathetic need to feel included by taking pot shots at Hillary supporters.


by Tolstoy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shame on me? (1.89 / 19)

Hey, I AM one of Hillary's 18 million supporters! And you know what? Beltway Dem, psychodrew, sricki, Redstocking, and all the rest of us Hillary Clinton Democrats for Barack Obama are as well!

And guess what? "PUMA" does NOT speak for us! So please, stop claiming "PUMA" is for all of us. I, for one, will have nothing to do with a GOP front group that's deceiving disappointed Hillary supporters like Alegre into supporting their filth.


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (none / 0)

You admit to accessing the PUMA site. I don't understand your claim that you will have nothing to do the group. Every single time you access the site, you contribute to the organization....every single hit.


by Liberty on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (2.00 / 1)

Funny, I feel the same way about the big orange blog whose name I dare not write.  I think that "progressive" blog did more to harm Democrats this cycle than Alegre's Corner. Oh yes I did, I just linked to Alegre's Corner (Oops, I did it again).


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (2.00 / 4)

Hell, no big deal. I linked to Alegre's Corner on  another blog. It is important MYDD readers get some comedic links to get through what is going to be long rough season ahead.


by Pravin on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (2.00 / 1)

"the big orange blog whose name I dare not write."

Just because I will find it amusing, can we all start referring to DailyKos as Voldemort?  The irony would get me through some boring days in the office.


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (2.00 / 1)

Yes!  Voldemort!  I like it.

The big orange blog whose name I dare not write will heretofore be known as Voldemort.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:52:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (none / 0)

Haha, I love it.  Plus it will be amusing when other people have no idea what "I was lurking on Voldemort the other day..." means.  :-)


by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You must mean DailyKos (2.00 / 1)

the best run blog in the blogosphere, where you can click through after having posted a comment or rated one, unlike this sorry excuse for an interface.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:17:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (2.00 / 3)

Alegre has nothing to do with any GOP front group.  Where do you get such bs?  


by Tolstoy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:22:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (1.90 / 11)

Alegre doesn't allow things critical of McCain on her site, for one.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (1.83 / 6)

Alegre doesnt work for the GOP. BUt she has no problem accepting banner ads from McCain on her site. She has no problem with commentators outright saying or implying Obama is worse than Mccain.


by Pravin on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (2.00 / 2)

I wrote a short entry to a diary that said that Obama and McCain were interchangeable - it discussed McCain's conservative rating, compared it with Obama's and Clinton's, and discussed why his was so much higher.

I then mentioned his rhetoric and how his proposals were at odds with all of the Democratic candidates.

It was deleted.  She doesn't allow criticism of McCain.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (2.00 / 1)

uh, those banner ads have been here and dkos too ya'know, but hey why let facts get in the way of a good baseless factless rant...


by zerosumgame on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shame on me? (2.00 / 1)

Actually I havent seen any McCain for PResident banner ads on this site.


by Pravin on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow. (1.40 / 5)

And here comes alegre crawling out from under her rock to HR one of her friends. Classy. I wonder who Hillary would be more disappointed in -- atd or you.

Pathetic and cowardly, allergy.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:13:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Really (2.00 / 3)

I was stunned when I saw that.

If you're going to come over here and start throwing around TR's, at least engage in the conversation.  I'm not one to piss and moan about the rules, but if people disappear for a while, they shouldn't be able to just trot back over and downrate at will.  

Those people walked away from this community.  To sneak it and toss eggs around is cowardly.  I completely agree.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:03:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have always (2.00 / 2)

had more sympathy for alegre than any other PUMA. I have defended her -- as recently as three days ago. But that she would come over here for the sole purpose of rec'ing a diary and HR'ing one of her friends... that's infuriating -- especially when he's the one doing what Hillary asked her supporters to do. I was shocked to see who the HR came from.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:10:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhpas I'm naive. (1.66 / 3)

I just never expected this when I join Alegre's group back in March.  Andrew tried so hard to be civil and polite and they just turned on him like a pack of wolves.

It's just sad.  The Hillary I know would be horrified.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not naive. (2.00 / 2)

I wasn't surprised when people like TexasDarlin rejected Hillary's request that we support Obama. But I was surprised about alegre. I had thought better of her.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. (1.50 / 2)

And you are also pathetic and cowardly, anna shame.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You too, Caldonia. (1.00 / 2)

Keep it up, PUMAs. Your movement will die soon, anyway, so have your fun while it lasts.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What happened to Alegre? (none / 0)

Good grief.  


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know... (1.81 / 11)

This is the melodramatic self-agrandizing horseshit that just makes me want to puke.

Hillary and her "18 million supporters" had the same voice and the same votes that I did. She "deserves" nothing more.

Obama was my third choice (my fourth counting Gore). Do you see me and other Gore, Edwards and Dodd supporters flining ourselves to the floor and throwing tantrums, kicking and pounding the floor and screaming about how our votes should count more?

She was a fucking candidate in an election. She lost. She's not a victim and neither are you. Grow the fuck up. Take a lesson from your candidate.

Shame on you and your pathetic, narcissistic need to pretend that it's not fair that the rules applied to you.


by BlueinColorado on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know... (2.00 / 7)

It's also a net negative for women candidates if people think they want to be treated according to a double standard.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you. (2.00 / 3)

I was thinking about this today. Susie Buell Tompkins has announced that Kathleen Sebellius is unacceptable as Obama's Veep because she's not Hillary. I'm not thrilled with Sebellius myself, but she's an accomplished politician with a far more impressive resume than HRC, but she's supposed to be barred from the national political scene because it would hurt the feelings of one Clinton's millionaire friends?

Who the fuck made Susie Buell Tompkins the arbiter of what's acceptable?

Unbelievable.


by BlueinColorado on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh no you didn't! (2.00 / 10)

Andrew worked HARD for Hillary all the way to the end.  After Hillary conceded, when he suggested to our fellow Clintonistas that we support the nominee, many of his "so-called" friends attacked him, using vicious language.

He's not attacking Hillary or her supporters.  He IS a Hillary supporter.  Don't turn criticism of yourself into criticism of Hillary.  That kind of shameless victimization has no place here.  

Shame on YOU, Tolstoy!


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no you didn't! (2.00 / 2)

He's not attacking Hillary's supporters?  Where'd you see that?  Looks to me like he called a lot of them Republican Trolls, Alegre amongst them. The diary is a shame on you to Adtleft, himself.  He had a choice of what to do, and he took the low road.


by Scotch on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:54:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no you didn't! (2.00 / 3)

He's attacking the PUMAs who working against the nominee of the party.  The PUMA should have nothing to do with Hillary because Hillary has endorsed the nominee.

If you don't want to support Obama, fine.  Don't support him.  But don't bring Hillary into it, because she's made it clear what she wants.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:05:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no you didn't! (2.00 / 1)

Back atcha, drew.  Andrew's attack was on Alegre who is a longtime Democratic activist and my friend.  You don't get a pass from me when you attack my friends, no matter how childish and needy you are.


by Tolstoy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:39:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh no you didn't! (2.00 / 4)

Why in the world is everything about Alegre?

He didn't attack her by name.  He condemned the entire PUMA movement.  After the way he was treated at Hillary's Voice last month, who can blame him for going after PUMA.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know... (2.00 / 3)

I see the typical suspects had no qualms about coming over here to uprate your comment, but God forbid should they engage in the discussion.

Very sad.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:00:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know... (2.00 / 2)

Alegre is rating her buds, but not engaging in the discussion.  Same old same old.  Way to go, Alegre!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:35:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know... (none / 0)

If you listened and treated us like the reasonable human beings that we are, instead of insulting us in order to get extra kudos from people who already agree with you, you might find out what's happened?  I don't think you're interested to know.  For one thing, the GOP has f***-all to do with it.


by daria g on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know... (none / 0)

If you listened and treated us like the reasonable human beings that we are
The problem is that very few in the PUMA crowd act like reasonable human beings. Anyone in the PUMA camp that begins to act reasonably will get treated as such.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 03:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tin foil hat alert (2.00 / 8)

From the "Confluence":

Some bloggers opposed to Barack Obama say they suspect Obama's supporters -- with the assistance of Google -- may have tried to censor them when the Internet giant froze their Web sites for five days last month.

Seven blogs run by Democrats who oppose Obama's nomination for the presidency were incorrectly flagged as spam sites by Blogger, the hosting service Google has owned since 2003. Google says it was an automated response from a spam filter.

SNIP

Google said in a press release that the blogs were blocked because an automatic spam filter had locked on to those seven Web sites.

"We believe this may have been caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the `Just Say No Deal' network of [anti-Obama] blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam," Google wrote, referring to a coalition of disaffected Democrats who oppose Obama's candidacy.

Maybe Google is telling the truth, but then again, didn't we just read that Silicon Valley (home to Google) is a hotbead of Obamamania?  One thing is for sure, the behavior of Obama supporters certainly makes this story plausible.

It's really just sad, the paranoia that rages among these people.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hold on there (2.00 / 7)

Google has two "O"s.  O for Obama.  And that's more than any other letter except "G".  And we all know what "G" is slang for (if you're in the early 90s).

CONNECT THE DOTS MAN!


by JJE on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's really interesting (2.00 / 8)

One of my thangs a few years back was to rejoin my first Internet Security cadre and make a product out of some mail security software they had laying about.  The MXtreme Mail Firewall appliance came out of that, and I ended up chairing an anti-spam coalition called JamSpam.  JamSpam was all the players (Sun, AOL, Microsoft, security vendors, electronic marketers etc.) and we tried to come up with a solution to SPAM.  It's amazingly difficult (I think I know the solution, but folks wouldn't listen then and I don't think they will now, so that's another story).  

Now that I think about it, though, it strongly indicates that they are sockpuppeting like mad hatters (which would only make their spamishness flavor worse to the systems that try to detect such things).  Servers that feed off eachother and send duplicate mail trying to look like they are coming from multiple valid sources...

One (or several) more reasons to believe that we are talking a much much smaller group than it would appear.

-ick, on yet another level...

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's really interesting (none / 0)

Gmail must have figured it out.  2 spam emails have gotten through to my inbox in 3 years and only 1 legitimate email ever got sent to spam.  And that's among tens of thousands of emails (maybe more).


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Really Large Sample sites (2.00 / 1)

like gmail and yahoo have pretty workable systems, and most of the viable corporate solutions are pretty good as well (IronPort, MXtreme etc...).  Even more reaons to believe the PUMA folks actually are spamming and falsifying sources.

But the SPAM problem is still a mess.  An enormous majority of email in the wild is spam, and there is not a single reason in the world to actually believe that an email came from you if I receive one that says so (anyone can fake the From field).

Without getting deep into it here, imo there is a possibility to attach "generic identity" to email and clean a lot of that up.  Not, for free accounts (where as you say it ain't a huge problem anyway) "I am Chris Blask", but rather "I am Human".  Marginal costs for organizations could easily raise the bar to make spam (which has a near-zero cost today) unprofitable.

But, aside from other problems, the people in my industry are either too geeky to accept a solution with so much slack in it or profit from the problem... :-(

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Google was never more right. (2.00 / 1)

I consider PUMA sites spam and I am hardpressed to see why Google disagrees with its spam filter, which is clearly making unbiased and correct decisions about what is and isn't garbage on the internet.


by shalca on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:20:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How sad. (2.00 / 1)


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is This What "PUMA" Stands For? (none / 0)

Ha - I know how the Internet works.  A significant number of people who write comments on it, tend to prefer insults and bullying instead of basic logic.  Look in the mirror.  

Of course, claiming those who dissent from your views are clinically insane goes back at least to the early 19th century.  Perhaps you should build a virtual panopticon to contain those of us who dare to hold a different opinion.  


by daria g on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:36:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is This What "PUMA" Stands For? (1.93 / 16)

It's sad, but Alegre has become the very thing she despised- a cult member.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:44:47 PM EST

I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 8)

I know her to be a yellow dog Dem of the first order.  I am completely puzzled by her behavior.  I think it is a social influences phenomenon.  I don't get it.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 5)

I think a paper could well be written on the psychology of the online PUMA phenomenon.  It's puzzling how otherwise rational adults could behave this way.

And they're almost all over 40, right?  I wonder if its how that age bracket deals with online interaction as compared with under 40's...

And yes, I know that there are plenty of people of that age who handle the Internet just fine.  That doesn't mean that there's no difference for those who avoided getting online well beyond the rest of us.  I'm just speculating, but the reason I ponder this topic is the peculiar way these folks have internalized all this.

It is very hard to understand.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am 49. (2.00 / 9)

I don't know about your theory.  I do believe that flexibility, humility, and pragmatism are attributes of all of us Clintonistas who accepted Obama was the nominee and rallied to his cause after Hillary left the race.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am 49. (2.00 / 9)

You'll forgive me, please.  I wasn't trying to offend, and it's not quite a theory at this point either.

I suspect it's a subgroup of people who deal with the internet differently.  It's not because of the age difference, but perhaps it has something to do with how younger folks have always had it, and have a certain level of comfort and ability to externalize it.

Age isn't really the point.  Also, it may be a certain kind of personality type we're dealing with.  I do not know.

I'm just tossing out ideas as to why a tiny percentage of Hillary supporters have dedicated themselves to be Internet Warriors on her behalf.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or maybe (none / 0)

we're just dedicated leftists who think Obama is a power hungry phony


by strongerthandirt on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe (2.00 / 6)

No.  You're not.

You think that, but no, there's something far more tragic about you folks.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe (none / 0)

WE. DON'T. LIKE. OBAMA.
WE. DON'T. TRUST. HIM.

What is there about the above that you don't understand? Seems simple to me!


by Marjoriest on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:48:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe (none / 0)

Again, that's pretty reasonable to me.  Especially in light of some of his recent statements.  But how do you get from there to "I guess I will just vote McCain then!"?


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe (2.00 / 1)

The thing is that whenever PUMA folks list their reasons for hating him these reasons are so small and petty that it becomes clear there has to be something else going on psychologically.  It's obvious that the PUMA folk are casting about for reasons to support a conclusion they already reached.  I share ire over Obama's FISA vote and his faith based initiative thing (the latter of which Clinton also supports), but it's also obvious that Obama is far better than McCain and things like this certainly don't lead me to hate him.  As for trust...  I was never able to trust Clinton because her decisions seemed based on strategic political calculation rather than a commitment to core principles (AUMF, Iran vote, support for NAFTA then condemnation of NAFTA etc).


by Philoguy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:02:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe (2.00 / 2)

It's the most off the charts hate I've seen of a public figure since listening to late night talk radio during the heyday of Bill Clinton's term.

It may even top it, although once you get into that level of irrationality there's sort of no point in making a comparison.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe (2.00 / 3)

Maybe... but I could think of other ways to categorize you.


Hey guys? You know we won right? You can stop the doooooomsaying now.
by JDF on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe (2.00 / 9)

yes, because all dedicated leftists want a third Bush term in the White House...

</snark>


New Mexico politics from the local perspective.
by fbihop on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In that case (2.00 / 7)

You'd better work on your skills at charades. The right wing zealot in you is having a hard time staying hidden.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or maybe (2.00 / 2)

But that conclusion is irrational.

First, Obama is a leftist in the context of American politics.

Second, oh, he wants power -- how terribly unusual behavior for a presidential candidate.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 10)

She has indicated that won't vote for McCain.  Right now, she seems to be working on getting the SD's to change their minds.  After Denver, she might grudgingly get on board.  I think a lot of minds will be change will Hillary gives her big speech endorsing the nominee and urging her supporters to unite behind him.

That's why the Obama campaign has to give her a prominent role at the convention.  I realize it's not conventional to do that for a defeated rival, but this nomination battles was anything but conventional and I don't think the Obama campaign really gets that.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 10)

I think Hillary has earned the right to give the keynote speech and to introduce Obama. I'll be somewhat surprised if it doesn't play out that way.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 10)

I respect your friendship with her, Drew, but I have to point out - getting the SDs to change their mind isn't a natural step in the grieving process.

The PUMA cult doesn't just oppose the democratic nominee, it has savaged him. The degree to which they've indulged in crass, hateful, spiteful rumor-mongering makes me not very optimistic about a change of heart on their part following the convention.

What they've started is like a snowball rolling down a mountain: they don't come with brakes.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 1)

The PUMA movement is very divided right now.  They're not all Harriet Christians.  I think that many of them will come around.  I don't put Alegre in the same category as the No25Cents people who believe that the New Yorker cartoon was an accurate depiction of Obama, rather than a caricature of the anti-Obama smears.

I have a post going up at Clintonistas for Obama very shortly on this.  I'm not cross-posting it here because (a) I both criticize and defend the PUMAs and I'll get beat up no matter what and (b) I can't stick around for comments.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 1)

I read your post at C4O - a well written and hopefully effective attempt at reason. I'm not optimistic for your chances, but kudos for making the effort.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:46:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Getting SD's to change their mind (2.00 / 2)

before the convention is allowed and is actually common practice.

There have been many contested conventions in Dem Party history.  Its not only allowed, historically speaking, its the norm.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting SD's to change their mind (2.00 / 1)

A contested convention is not conducive to a united party in the Fall. That was my point - no one's questioning the legality of it.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting SD's to change their mind (2.00 / 2)

Yes, we have had contested conventions and we've gone on to LOSE in the general election.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and we've also gone on to win (none / 0)

We've also had uncontested conventions and gone on to lose.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting SD's to change their mind (2.00 / 3)

No, it's not a common practice.

I am a student of American political history and can't think of an example since the invention of superdelegates.

Perhaps you could offer one, with a link?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:00:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Many Dem conventions have been contested (none / 0)

through history.  Super D's are a recent phenomenon, but it has been common practice for hundreds of years to have contested Dem conventions.  In this case, Super D's whose states voted for Clinton are being asked to honor the intent of the voters in their state.

That means candidates make their case and try to persuade delegates (Super D or otherwise) to support them before and during the convention.

It also isn't unusual in party history to choose a candidate after more than one round of delegate voting.  Recall, the rules commit delegates to a given candidate only during the first round of voting.  If their candidate doesn't win, they can change their vote on subsequent ballots.

Growing up I recall watching these votes watching the Dem convention on the old black and white tv.  Conventions of recent years that serve as coronations and commercials are the exception, not the rule.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Many Dem conventions have been contested (2.00 / 2)

Oh, of course there have been contested conventions.

But there are no cases of superdelegates switching. NONE.

And there hasn't been a contested Democratic convention for about 50 years - it's not at all "the norm," it's an old model we left behind.

Besides, there is no active competition right now. Clinton has endorsed Obama.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Contested conventions are real democracy in action (none / 0)

It represents the true process of individual voters having a say in which candidate their party chooses.

Making those decisions behind closed doors before the convention at the direction of corporate donors is not democracy.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contested conventions are real democracy in ac (none / 0)

They won't vote behind closed doors. it'll be on c-span.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Getting SD's to change their mind (2.00 / 1)

Well, they've been around since 1984 and no presumptive nominee has ever been overturned after they got to the magic number but before the convention.  So...I'm not sure what you are basing it on.


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 1)

Just as you did with Hillary. It must be convenient to have a short memory.


by Marjoriest on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Care to substantiate your accusations? (2.00 / 1)

It must be convenient to have made-up beliefs.

It must be even more convenient to be able to turn national elections into petty little grudge matches, and to be able to vote strictly out of spite.

That must mean that the results couldn't possibly impact your life - not in the way it is of life-or-death consequence to others. Or, that it will impact you - but your anger has blinded the reason out of you. Appalling selfishness, or appalling stupidity - your choice.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:46:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 1)

I can't imagine a scenario where Hillary does not have a prominent role at the convention.  And  it's not going to be tailored to winning over the 'pumas - I think most of them are a lost cause at this point regardless of anything Hillary says.  Ignoring this mess, Hillary is powerful figure & voice who, regardless of the final ticket, will be a major part of the campaign.  

Having just dismissed the 'puma' lot en-mass, I must add that I last looked at Allegre's corner immediately after the Unity event and saw Allegre comment saying that she was struggling with the idea of following Hillary's lead.  This sounded sincere, and was not die-hard "dead-ender" poise.  Sadly though, the follow-ups were far less nuanced.


A drink whenever Palin makes a Well-argued, Semantically Intact, Logical and Lucid Argument -- or WASILLA for short.
by January 20 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have spent time with Alegre (2.00 / 1)

Hillary will have a very prominent role, probably a big speech the first night.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is This What "PUMA" Stands For? (2.00 / 2)

I know Alegre.  She is nothing of the sort.


by Tolstoy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is This What "PUMA" Stands For? (2.00 / 3)

Well she sure has fooled me then.  I heard her on a blogcast the other night...two hours of on-stop attacking Obama on the most ridiculous and redundant traits - all of it the same old stuff these people have been saying since February - they hate Obama with a passion and there is no mistaking that.  His wife and family are also attacked continually. and, at the same time, absolutely fawning over Hillary.  It's sickening and I'm sorry to say but Alegre and others of her ilk will have to do a little more to show that they are not turning into mccain supporters - haven't convinced me at all.


by mariannie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I completely disagree. (2.00 / 3)

If you actually talk to the PUMAs like they are rational human beings, you'll discover that many of them have rational reasons for what they are doing.  The PUMA movement is not a cult of personality.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i agree with you. (2.00 / 1)

and while it pains me to say this atdleft since i think you are just fantastico, that while i appreciate the sentiments in this diary.  many a PUMA and HRC primary supporter might look at it and say - hell, why was it okay for the BO campaign and many supporters to use right-wing smears on her without getting called out and now be expected to apply a different standard?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg