Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: Just What does it take to be a PUMA? (Daily Puma) (09-30-09)


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Just What does it take to be a PUMA? (Daily Puma) (09-30-09)
Permalink  
 



Alessandro at Daily Puma posted this on 0/30, but I didn't see it until today.  He has been a dedicated Puma, and like some of us, apparently is concerned about the future of PUMA.  I'll move this to the Puma forum, but wanted to post it here briefly.

BTW, sorry about the all caps, above.  Can't change it.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

Just What does it take to be a PUMA?

As time goes on, the PUMA movement appears to be simultaneously expanding, and also dissipating.

DailyPUMA thinks it is important to review and remember what caused the original PUMA flash point which caused many different but formerly democratic support groups to declare themselves PUMAs, albeit their own unique brand of PUMA.

In my opinion the flash points that created PUMA was caused by a concerted effort from the media, led by Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and then in rapid succession, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Atlantic Monthly, Move ON, Media Matters, CNN and most definitely a few others as well, to slam Hillary Clinton with crazy accusations while simultaneously not vetting Barack Obama.

The media consortium mentioned above ALL began putting a decidedly pro Barack Obama slant on their news reporting, while also creating an anti Hillary Clinton slant as well. Money may have played a really big part, as the Barack Obama campaign was able to dole out a lot of money to the media and the internet in the form of advertising revenue.

A certain, significant percentage of Barack Obama's donations may have been illegally gathered. Besides Barack Obama's campaign spending gargantuan amounts of money all over the media and the internet, the ill gotten donations were also used to entice SEVERAL DOZEN high profile politicians and celebrities to strategically give their support to Barack Obama even as Barack Obama's numbers were sliding over the final 10 weeks of the democratic nomination contests.

PUMA's were outraged that democratic political higher ups and the media would choose to "pre-favor" one democratic candidate over another, especially when the "unfavored" candidate (Hillary Clinton) had waited for her chance and patiently absorbed a couple decades of political interactions in such an amazingly divergent set of surroundings.

Does anyone recall ever hearing the media report that celebrities and democratic icons wanted the american people to choose with their vote the next democratic nominee?

All I remember hearing and seeing from the media was the pomp and circumstance of the next celebrity or politician being trotted out in support of Barack Obama. Many of these endorsements were timed to give the media an excuse to IGNORE significant Hillary Clinton primary wins.

Being married to Bill Clinton and an active participant in his political career had made Hillary Clinton uniquely qualified to view how political processes worked on a state level, and then on a federal level as well. Then to round out her own qualifications, Hillary Clinton served in the senate as well.

What was most painful for myself to witness was Hillary Clinton actually winning more delegates than Barack Obama from all of the democratic primary contests, even when the the votes of Florida and Michigan were excluded.

Knowing that caucus contests use 88% less voters to determine each delegate, and that the caucus contests appear to be easier to both cheat AND also keep away certain demographics, is something I will not forgive the democratic party for, since it flies in direct opposition to the stated democratic tenet of "fair reflection".

So more than a year later, where does that leave all PUMAs? PUMA's now support so many diverse beliefs and causes that it would probably be difficult to get them to agree to any one thing in mass.

However, I believe that it is important for anyone who believes they are a PUMA to at least agree on a couple of key points, the biggest key point being that Hillary Clinton was both unfairly treated by the media and the democratic party in 2008, and that we should STRONGLY consider peace based retribution against those who really had no business trying to derail Hillary Clinton in 2008 but did so just so they could grab their moment of glory and possibly position themselves for some kind of business or financial reward as well.


If anyone on the list were to ever to publicly admit to putting financial gain or business opportunities as the reason they backstabbed Hillary Clinton, then they could be removed from the "don't support list".

"It's really that simple."





-- Edited by freespirit on Sunday 4th of October 2009 10:35:25 PM

-- Edited by freespirit on Sunday 4th of October 2009 10:36:33 PM

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think this post underscores the reasons why we shouldn't separate PUMA from Hillary, as some have suggested. Maybe it isn't all about Hillary, but it's mostly about Hillary-- and the people who voted for her and donated $$ to her campaign.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree Jen but remember Hillary brought us all together and most of us remain loyal to Her but some people are angry with our girl because she stopped fighting or because she is working for him.  I don't think we should abondon Hillary and I suspect that many who are angry at her will either forgive her or leave the PUMA movement.

__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg



Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

To me, it's all about the UNDEMOCRATIC treatment Hillary received... by her party, which included removal of her votes to give to BO, rampant caucus fraud that the Dems allowed, failure to object to the sexism and misogyny, the calls for her to quit when she was winning, and saying to hell with all of us who supported her. And, Alessandro is right about the Fair Reflection issue.

It's also about MSM - who actually elected Obama. And in doing so they slammed Hillary - based not on her ability, but on her gender.

The blatant sexism on the parts of the media, the Obama campaign, and the general popular culture made us all aware that women are even more undervalued and discriminated against than we realized.

She is who it all happened to (and her supporters, by extension). But, it is WHAT happened that motivated us to start PUMA. Had she simply lost in a fair election, objectively covered by the press, we would have had no reason to have formed PUMA.

Hillary was the target of this gross unfairness, sexism, and undemocratic action - to that extent, I don't see how she could be separated from puma. But, at the same time, it's not about her - it's about what happened. The focus should be, imo, on the events that took place, rather than on Hillary. But, she would have to be referenced, I think, in order to define the origins of the movement.

I hope even those who don't like her any longer still feel that the events that occurred need to be addressed and corrected.

For those who want to have Palin as a part of their group issues, I think that's just fine. She was treated like hell in 2008, as well. For those who don't like that idea, fine - don't focus on her. If they don't want to focus on Hillary - fine, focus on sexism, or MSM, or another issue.

For me, although I would like to have Hill as POTUS some day, it's not even about that. It's about the fact that huge injustices occurred in 2008 - injustices that have still not been acknowledged by those who perpetrated them, nor by the general public. If we did nothing but educate people about how democracy was taken out of their hands in 2008, we would have done a lot. The way the Dems and MSM rigged this election was a real wake-up call for me. Democracy is much more fragile than I realized.

It seems to me that those who are serious about PUMA or about the injustices of 2008 could focus on the core issues - that started the movement. Agree just on that - and PUMA can regain strength. If individuals or groups want to go beyond those issues, and add Palin, health care, whatever ---fine. We don't have to all agree on everything. If a PUMA group wants to support Palin, that should be OK, so long as their central focus is on core PUMA issues. If they want to turn away from Hillary, that should be OK too, as long as their central focus is on the core PUMA issues. - Just my opinion.

Hope this makes some sense. I can't put my contacts in - lol. And, when I can't see clearly, my mind is a little foggy, as well.




__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 1191
Date:
Permalink  
 

It's all about honor, and putting Country First!

__________________

Barack/Barry:  If you're NOT LEGIT, then you MUST QUIT!!



Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 112
Date:
Permalink  
 

freespirit wrote:

To me, it's all about the UNDEMOCRATIC treatment Hillary received... by her party, which included removal of her votes to give to BO, rampant caucus fraud that the Dems allowed, failure to object to the sexism and misogyny, the calls for her to quit when she was winning, and saying to hell with all of us who supported her. And, Alessandro is right about the Fair Reflection issue.

It's also about MSM - who actually elected Obama. And in doing so they slammed Hillary - based not on her ability, but on her gender.


I agree, freespirit.  And reading Alessandro's piece infuriated me all over again - not that my anger had dissipated.


__________________


Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 376
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree with everyone.

But the one thing that stays in my mind is donna braziles "message to base, stay home". I will never forgive that nor forget that.

__________________


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

shadow wrote:

I agree with everyone.

But the one thing that stays in my mind is donna braziles "message to base, stay home". I will never forgive that nor forget that.




I have a feeling that Donna's gonna get her wish in 2010 and 2012, Shadow.  People are already realizing that O is a zero, and if he and the Dems can't do anything for this country (not the corporate pirates) with a majority in both houses, then they'll never be able to do anything.  Trouble is, they're pushing an agenda that represents beliefs and values very different from those of most Americans.

We need to be able to impact the 2010 elections.  Mslas made the comment some time back that the SDs who turned on Hill (imo especially those whose districts and/or states voted for hill) need to be exposed.  I totally agree.  In any of the upcoming elections - Dems who have, as reddirt girl noted - not put country and honor first, not supported the will of the people, tried to manipulate and game the system - need to be put out of office, and we need to help put them there.

If a state voted for Hill, and the SD from that state (ie Robert Byrd - though he'll surely not run again) allowed Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean to buy or bully them into supporting Obama, they violated the will of the people and need to go - regardless of whether Hillary was the target of their behavior, or another candidate.  Point is - both parties have dishonorable people serving.  That's been the case for a long time.  We saw it in action in a way that most of us had never seen in 2008 - in the case of Hillary.  She was the target - but the dishonorable behavior is the issue.

 

 



__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 1191
Date:
Permalink  
 

freespirit wrote:

If a state voted for Hill, and the SD from that state (ie Robert Byrd - though he'll surely not run again) allowed Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean to buy or bully them into supporting Obama, they violated the will of the people and need to go - regardless of whether Hillary was the target of their behavior, or another candidate.  Point is - both parties have dishonorable people serving.  That's been the case for a long time.  We saw it in action in a way that most of us had never seen in 2008 - in the case of Hillary.  She was the target - but the dishonorable behavior is the issue.




Hear, hear!!

 



__________________

Barack/Barry:  If you're NOT LEGIT, then you MUST QUIT!!



Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 276
Date:
Permalink  
 

Alex wrote:

It's all about honor, and putting Country First!



Agree.  We were all democrats, believing in the same thing.  What would be best for our country?  Without a shadow of a doubt, it was Hillary. Usually, we would vote democrat no matter who was running, because we were democrats. But, this time, for the first time, we saw something going on that wasn't quite right. They got caught lying to us and we knew we were being set up and we said to them, "we are not going to support your choice, he's a fraud and we can see right through your plan" and then we said, "party unity my ass".

 



__________________


Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 376
Date:
Permalink  
 

Destiny wrote:

 

Alex wrote:

It's all about honor, and putting Country First!



Agree.  We were all democrats, believing in the same thing.  What would be best for our country?  Without a shadow of a doubt, it was Hillary. Usually, we would vote democrat no matter who was running, because we were democrats. But, this time, for the first time, we saw something going on that wasn't quite right. They got caught lying to us and we knew we were being set up and we said to them, "we are not going to support your choice, he's a fraud and we can see right through your plan" and then we said, "party unity my ass".

 

 




That is right. And in response, donna brazile sent that email telling us they didn't need us and to stay home.

 

It was very difficult to watch, knowing the fraud going on, the phony votes, them literally taking her votes away, all for this nimwit who has no idea what he is doing.

I remember people on the DU bragging about how they voted twice. I was sickened.

 



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard