First of all, like I said in an earlier post, buck up, guys, it’s not the end of the world! And, contrary to what anybody says, PUMA is a HUGE success. Or, it can be. Sure, the naysayers in the mainstream media, the blogger bullies, and the disappointed Republicans who didn’t know we were alive until they got desperate and now want to blame us, are minimizing us, our numbers and our impact. What makes it easy to discount us and our numbers is the same thing that makes us unique and powerful; PUMA is a true grassroots movement. Unlike those well-organized “Astroturfing Tools of Axelrod”, we have no corporate funds to buy ad time, and pr firms to bump up our “presence” in the media, no political sponsorship giving us decades old, well researched membership lists to exploit, just like-minded people, united in principle, dedicated to effecting change. That’s power, baby, and it blows that “GOP sponsored, ratfucking operation” nonsense straight to hell. We’ve got what Howard Dean exploited and turned into Democracy for America, even though he did have his Dean for America base to build on. But we’ve got a PUMA base to build on, now, too. If we want to. If not, hey, it was a helluva ride, and before we do anything rash, it might be prudent to sit back and wait to see how this thing shakes out. I’ve got a feeling we might be desperately needed in the very near future.
A lot of us have the blues right now, that’s to be expected. But the truth is, there’s so much to be admired about all of you who call yourself PUMA, and those of you who sympathize with what PUMA stands for, that it’s hard to know where to start. You guys forced the DeaNC to at least pretend to live up to it’s principles. With no money, no headquarters, no nothing, really, but integrity, spirit, devotion and hard work, you took a contingent of real Americans to the freaking Democratic National Convention and were heard! Ignored, but heard. All things considered, that’s pretty amazing for a loose-knit coalition of people scattered across the country, connected only by the internet and faith. There isn’t really even one central PUMA…anything, other than the absolutely unshakable belief that democracy should be central to the Democratic party, and the willingness to play David to the DeaNC’s Goliath, if need be.
Just because it’s the right thing to do.
I am so grateful to all of you, you are what America should be. So, have a long hot soak and a glass of wine, watch a DVD, get some rest, and chill. This movie just started.
Thank you.
I’m proud to know you all.
PUMA
Just Say No Deal
Every minute that goes by provides more evidence that, yes, the Democrats are jerks Schmoos, with a capital “J.” They keep shooting themselves in the foot stuck in their mouths, not an easy thing to do, to be sure. AP News is reporting:
In an emotional meeting leading up to the Democratic roll call of the states, Hillary Rodham Clinton released her convention delegates Wednesday to vote for certain presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Many in the crowded ballroom yelled back, “No!”
“I am not telling you what to do,” Clinton responded. “You’ve come here from so many different places having made this journey and feeling in your heart what is right for you to do.”
This was expected, and so far, it doesn’t seem so bad, right? Well, except for that whole “nominate Obama” thing, but enough said about that. While some delegates were said to be “visibly upset” by the plan to engage in a symbolic roll call-in-name-only, some were more upset than others:
Massachusetts delegate Nancy Saboori was visibly upset at the end of Clinton’s speech.
“She doesn’t have the right to release us,” Saboori argued. “We’re not little kids to be told what to do in a half-hour.”
The story continues:
Not all Clinton supporters were on board. Sonja Jaquez Lewis, a Clinton delegate from Colorado, said she and others may walk out if Clinton is denied a roll call.
“If we don’t have an official roll call vote, state-by-state, it is going to reopen a wound,” Lewis said.
Ya think? Unsurprisingly, Claire McCaskill is vying for the title of Chief Among Schmoos:
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter, said Clinton’s challenge in getting her delegates to come on board with Obama “may be the biggest test of her leadership.”
“If she’s not a strong enough leader to get her followers to do what’s right for America, then that would surprise me,” McCaskill told the AP. “I think they are going to follow her lead, and her lead was very crystal clear last night.”
Wyoming Senator Mike Massie tells of the shenanigans going on:
Wyoming state Sen. Mike Massie, D-Laramie, said his delegation gave 12 votes to Obama and six to Clinton after state party officials rejected a request from Clinton delegates to delay the vote until after a meeting later in the day with Clinton. Massie said the delegation is still puzzled by orders to vote before Clinton could meet with her delegates and release them.
“That question is on the minds of a lot of people,” Massie said.
They rushed the vote? Say it ain’t so! In other news showing the delusion of the clueless, from another AP article:
Bill Clinton will say in a roughly eight-minute speech that only a Democrat in the White House can “restore America’s standing to what it was eight years ago,” said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to pre-empt the former president’s speech.
And this:
In a sign of unity, Obama adviser Berman and Clinton adviser Smith told delegates on Wednesday that they had been working out of the same office all week to ensure a smooth convention.
“The story is that we are working as a team,” Berman said.
Some story. “Clinton adviser Smith.” We know whose side he’s really on. Bill Clinton gets an eight minute speech, Hillary Clinton’s delegates are forced to vote before talking to her, and Claire McCaskill thinks this is all about Hillary. It is, but not the way Claire thinks, if she is indeed capable of such activity. And while Claire might be Chief Schmoo, she can’t hold a candle to Nancy P.:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, presiding officer of the Democratic National Convention, predicted the roll-call voting after the names of both Obama and Clinton were put in nomination would go “very smoothly.”
Anything like Congress, Nan? Schmoos, the whole lot of ‘em.
Hillary Clinton did the impossible tonight; she did everything she was asked to do by eveyone who asked her to do it, all in a single speech. The DeaNC wanted her to be a bridge over the troubled waters between her supporters and Barack Obama; her supporters wanted her to show the world why she should be the Democratic Party’s nominee. She did both. Will her supporters do as she asked? Unlikely, but it won’t be because Hillary Clinton didn’t do everything in her power to get them to. It will be because Barack Obama did not. Or could not.
Yet, moments after Senator Clinton accomplished this remarkable feat, the criticism began.
“Barack Obama is my candidate,” she said. “And he must be our president.”
But did she mean it? And would it matter?
The Yahoo News article goes on to revisit Clinton’s campaign criticisms of Obama and highlight the McCain camp’s exploitation of them. It predictably dredges up insults, grudges and slights as well as speculation regarding Bill Clinton’s ability to live up to his “end of the bargain.” Mainly though, it was HRC’s night and the analysis was mostly aimed at her. Saying at the end that Clinton
…left Obama in a stronger position than Kennedy left Jimmy Carter in 1980, when the Massachusetts senator extracted platform concessions and shrank from the traditional unity show at the final gavel.
But she did extract her price.
The bill came due Tuesday. The crowd. The applause. The promise of a vote Wednesday, and a speech laced 17 times by some variation of the pronoun “I.”
But the real bitchiness came from Politico’s Roger Simon:
At her speech to the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night, Hillary said the right things. Nobody could accuse her of going overboard, but she said the right things.
In response to this quote from Clinton
“To my supporters, my champions — my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits — from the bottom of my heart: Thank you,” she said. “You never gave in. You never gave up. And together we made history.”
Simon sniped,
It was history. Of a sort. She showed that a woman could win the nomination. But she did not win the nomination. And the guy who did made some history, too.
This schmoo then goes on to further denigrate Clinton’s brave efforts with unnecessary comments like this:
We are now asked to believe that a significant number of Hillary supporters will vote for John McCain in November rather than vote for Barack Obama. That is what some polls show and it has become a major media story line.
To which I say: Hooey. Maybe that is the kind of thing you tell pollsters and reporters, but I don’t think it is the kind of thing that happens in real life.
Obviously, Mr. Simon lacks basic comprehension skills. No one owes Obama their vote, no matter how much they respect and admire Senator Clinton’s efforts on his behalf. And we don’t have to vote for McCain, there are other candidates. Or, we could just stay home. Yet Simon makes it clear that no matter what we do, or what Clinton did, it will ever be considered to be enough. Nor will Senator Obama bear any responsibility for his own prospects. The burden for Obama’s success or failure falls squarely on Clinton’s shoulders.
Tuesday night she said some of the right words. But between now and November, Hillary Clinton can go out and work to heal the wounds or sit back and keep them open.
If this is truly the attitude of Obama and his sycophants, he doesn’t deserve to win. And he can blame people like Roger Simon.
PUMA
Just Say No Deal
“Things are fine, no really, go on about your business, there’s nothing to see here. Ease on down the road. Go on, now, git!”
That’s what some of the good folks running the DNC are saying to those silly people who want that pesky principle called “democracy” to have some meaning at the Democratic National Convention this year. And they act like there should be no penalty at all, like say, losing a slam dunk election, for doing such a thing.
On Wednesday, Politico reported that Hillary Clinton had created a “whip team:”
In an unusual move, Hillary Clinton’s staff is creating a 40-member “whip team” at the Denver Democratic convention to ensure that her supporters don’t engage in embarrassing anti-Obama demonstrations during the floor vote on her nomination, according to people familiar with the planning.
The team, which is being organized by longtime Clinton staffer Craig Smith, is working in conjunction with Obama’s floor organizers to help foster the image of a unified front during a roll-call process Clinton herself has described as an emotional “catharsis” for her disappointed supporters.
Got it? Hillary and her longtime staffer, okay? Keep that in mind, it’s very important. Because in yesterdays’ New York Times, was this:
The Obama campaign is leaving little to chance. It has created a rapid response team — led by Craig Smith, a former top operative in the Clinton world — to head out to the convention floor at the first sign of any trouble from Clinton supporters.
Lest you think that was a typo, a mix-up, miscommunication or some other sort of mistake, the Times provides this little nugget:
Mr. Obama’s campaign began sending out a one-page sheet of daily talking points to delegates, instructing them what to say and what to avoid in talking to reporters. (In one last week, according to a recipient, the central thrust was how to parry questions about Clinton-Obama strife and Mrs. Clinton’s speech by saying, “I can’t wait to hear Hillary Clinton talk about the future and am excited that her candidacy is unifying our party!”)
I wonder what else Hillary said that Hillary didn’t say, hmmm? And once again, I gotta wonder, what do these people use for brains, and do they use toilet paper after?
PUMA
Just Say No Deal
How can people entrusted with so much responsibility be so clueless? For anybody to think that you can make a sham nomination of a fraudulent candidate legitimate by forcing people to pretend they’re cool with it, is so amazingly stupid that it’s hard to believe that anyone with mental ability beyond what it takes to scrabble on walls with a crayon could think of it, let alone try to pull it off. But hey, that’s Nancy Pelosi, for you.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is chairwoman of the convention, acknowledged Monday that Democrats are not yet united following the bitter primary fight, especially among women. She said a “gender gap” in Obama’s favor had emerged “even before the convention, and even before the complete reconciliation that we need,” she said.
“But to stay wallowing in all of this is not productive,” she said. “So we can talk about this forever, or we can talk about how we’re going to take our message to the American people, to women all across America, to see the distinctions” between Obama and Republican candidate John McCain.
The biggest difference, Madame Speaker, (it’s a shame when using someone’s title qualifies as a dig, considering Congress’ approval ratings ) is that John McCain won his nomination fairly. Don’t you get it, honey? For a lot of us, that’s huge.
PUMA
Just Say No Deal
There’s an ambush a-foot in the media tonight. There is another obviously apparent attempt to further hijack democracy by the wussy Barry and the Obamacrats who’re scared to death that Hillary Clinton will upstage The Chosen at his own coming out party. If they only had a brain, they would be even more terrified that delegates and super delegates at the convention might realize that Obama’s wimp-out agreement to a roll call vote has the potential to expose Obama as the slimy, manipulative fraud he is, just by actually being conducted fairly. Since Obama is all about style over substance, a halfway clued-in Camp O might then try to fight against such a thing happening by launching an all out media blitz pushing “unity,” and putting the onus of achieving it on HRC. Ya think?
They could ask CBS News to push it:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, hoping to unite the Democratic Party and cement her future in it, will gather her hard-won primary delegates Wednesday at a reception where she is expected to formally release them to Barack Obama, CBS News confirms.
Then push it some more:
The high-profile gathering of political regulars who once fought against Obama serves a dual purpose for Clinton: Show fellow Democrats that she can be a team player, and display her still formidable political strengths for the future. Many of her supporters want her to run for president again.
Camp Obiewannabepresident might then find somebody at Salon to hint that if the roll call proceeds fairly, Clinton would be guilty of aiding and abetting the Republicans! That would be so cool, and the Obamaschmoos could probably do it too, since Salon is a San Francisco mag, and you know much those folks love him.
When leading Republicans who are not working on the fall presidential campaign were asked to sketch out the best possible scenario in Denver to boost John McCain, they kept uttering those fateful two words: “the Clintons.” As GOP pollster John McLaughlin put it, “I’m rooting for the media’s tendency to focus on how the Clintons have taken over Obama’s convention.” Republicans saw other potential pitfalls for Obama — from delivering a vaporous acceptance speech to abandoning the safe center on policy issues — but the conversations kept coming back to the woman who nearly won the nomination and the way she will play her hand in Denver.
But what if it worked? What if those media outlets went along and so many other ones did too ( see previous post ) that Clinton did release her delegates? Out of the goodness of her heart. Just so Obuhbuh could be coronated. Wouldn’t that unify the party? Wouldn’t it?
They couldn’t be that clueless, could they?
Wait a minute, that’s another movie.
PUMA
Just Say No Deal
The fact that the reality of lowered expectations towards black Americans impacts Barack Obama’s candidacy is something I have written about before in a post called Barack Obama and The Trained Monkey Curve. Simply put, the collective American assumption that black people have limited potential for accomplishment due to our inherent deficiencies accounts for the over-the-top praise of his otherwise average-ness. These media-reinforced perceptions inhabiting the subconscious psyches of a great number of Americans is what lead Joe Biden to suggest that Obama is prepared to lead the nation just because he’s an articulate black guy. Barack Obama’s own insecurities are what lead him to brush the insult off.
Now, the schmoos at Yahoo News are suggesting that lowered expectations somehow equate to humility:
Barack Obama took a sermon on humility to heart Sunday, predicting his presidential acceptance speech might not be the best at this week’s Democratic convention despite his famous oratory skills.
Lowering expectations is one of the oldest tricks in the political book, especially before a pivotal event like a political convention. And expectations for Obama are sky high because he’s delivered such rousing speeches before.
“I’m still tooling around with my speech a little bit,” Obama told reporters on a stop in this Midwestern battleground state. “May not be as good as the other headliners the first three nights, but hopefully it will make clear the choices the American people are going to face in November.”
Could it be that Obama is simply making an honest assessment of his speaking abilities? Where before mediocre performances were unduly praised, perhaps he realizes that he is now more likely to be judged appropriately; as a presidential candidate and not as a black presidential candidate. Humility doesn’t seem to have anything to do with it, otherwise, he wouldn’t be making excuses about a speech to be delivered in a freakin’ football stadium.
PUMA
Just Say No Deal
People are so clueless. There’s a theory floating around that Hillary Clinton not only owes it to her party to deliver her supporters to Barack Obama, there’s a belief that such a thing can be done. ‘Fraid not. When will people get it through their heads that people chose to vote for Clinton, they did not pledge allegiance to her? Voters looked at the candidates running and made a decision, as they always do. However, none of those voters agreed at any point to follow HRC blindly.
A large number of those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries also flat out rejected her opponent, some did not. Some people, like me, believe Clinton is the far superior candidate, while Obama is woefully unqualified. For others, it was about one candidate being good, the other being better. Still others, while not being fully committed to HRC, came to the decision to support her as a result of deciding that Obama was unacceptable under any circumstances, no matter who opposed him. Whatever their reasons, a sizable number of people who voted for Hillary will never vote for Barack Obama, no matter what Hillary Clinton says.
It is extremely simplistic, and frankly, stupid, to assume that if Clinton is unavailable, Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents will gravitate to Obama by default. It is much more logical to assume that removing her from the equation gives the victor the opportunity to make his case to the half of his party that didn’t vote for him in the primaries. Yet, everyone wants to obscure the fact that he is fundamentally incapable of doing any such thing by trying to put the burden of convincing these voters to embrace the “presumptive nominee” on the shoulders of the candidate those voters still prefer. This defies common sense.
In a Newsweek article by Eleanor Clift, polster Celinda Lake pushes this delusion, despite the obvious realities:
The startling news in the bipartisan Battleground poll unveiled midweek by Lake and her Republican counterpart, Brian Nienaber, is McCain’s 10 point lead among independents. The election outcome in November will likely hinge on that group, and they were supposed to be Obama’s strong suit. “McCain is a known quantity; Obama is a new quantity,” Lake explained, adding that independents right now are deciding on the basis of strength of leadership, rather than change.
No, Ms. Lake, Independents are deciding on the basis Obama being who he is, and coming up short. Clift speculates that John McCain is leading in part because of his clever ads depicting Obama as…well, Obama.
McCain is a far more plausible candidate at summer’s end in part because he has sanctioned a sharply negative campaign against Obama.
