We agree with Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama, we support the progressive values they support, and we share their dedication to making this nation better... That's why we're Democrats! :-)
I really think John Ridley at The Huffington Post did a good job this morning of putting an end to the false rumor being spread by Rush Limbaugh's Dittoheads PUMA McTrolls that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama last weekend was entirely "ALL ABOUT RACE!!!!" & that African-Americans are always "racist" in only supporting African-American candidates.
Uh huh. So why didn't Al Sharpton or Carol Mosely Braun win the DC Primary in 2004? Why didn't African-American voters cross party lines in droves to vote for Alan Keyes in 1996 & 2000? Why didn't Jesse Jackson win the majority of the Afro-American vote in 1984 or 1988?
Obviously, black voters don't support black candidates "just because they're black". If that were the case, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) should have lost his Congressional race in the majority-black Memphis district in 2006 to Harold Ford's brother... But he didn't! Yes, believe it or not, black voters choose the best candidate, just like all the rest of us. And when we remember this, that only confirms what Colin Powell said himself on Sunday.
So there, another "PUMA McTroll myth" debunked for today! ;-)
And you're wondering just what the deal is with this person. And you may also be wondering why the "PUMA" crowd is cheering this new lie...
Well, here are the facts. First off, this supposed "martyr" Debra Bartoshevich has always been a McCain supporter. Despite her crocodile tears about being kickied out of the Democratic National Convention's Wisconsin Delegation because "she was a Hillary supporter", the truth is that she was removed because Democratic Party delegates do NOT support Republicans! She broke the rules, so the state Democratic Party replaced her with a true Hillary Clinton Democrat.
And now, Debra Bartoshevich is proving her Republican bona fides by lying in a national TV commercial for McCain. She refuses to mention McCain's embrace of all things Bush-Cheney. She doesn't mention how John McCain now stands for more wars, fewer protections for the middle class, more environmental destruction, fewer real energy solutions, more extreme-right judges "legislating from the bench", and fewer civil rights for all of us. Oh no, Ms. Bartoshevich refuses to tell the truth. She just lies for her beloved "Johnny Mac". And really, we're supposed to believe she's a Hillary Clinton Democrat?
"Now, I understand that the McCain campaign is running ads trying to divide us," Clinton said. "And let me state what I think of those ads: I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message."
"Let there be no mistake about it, We're united, and we're united for change. We are, after all, Democrats, so it may take (pause) a while. (Laughter). We're not the fall in line party. We're diverse. Many voices. But make no mistake, we are united. We are united on behalf of the Democratic Party values we hold dear."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. "PUMA" is nothing more than a Rethuglican front group! They want to sow anger and division among us Democrats, just so that John McCain wins this fall and their beloved GOP can have at least four more years to destory this nation some more.
I've had it with their lies. I've had it with their attacks on Democrats. Before the corporate media slavishly laps up the "PUMA" falsehoods any more, it's time they hear from us on what the truth really is.
During the Democratic Convention this week, we'll finally see the party unite to win this fall. Hillary Clinton will speak once more in support of Barack Obama. Barack Obama will show his support for what Hillary Clinton and all of her voters support. And once and for all, this false meme of "Democrats in disarray" can finally be disproven.
The backlash against my diary on Will Bower's lies was a little bit stronger than I had anticipated. I have basically been challenged on three points. The first is that Will Bower backed off the $6 million figure to a smaller amount. The second is that some of the money accidentally went into Hillary's senate campaign account. The third is that PUMAs raised "close" to the $6 million, Will Bower's "conservative" estimate on July 10th.
First, here is Will Bower on July 10, 2008.
We at JustSayNoDeal.com, we started an initiative before the Fourth of July to raise money to put down her debt. And within that week leading up to the Fourth of July we raised approximately $10 million. Our most conservative estimates have it at six million but we're looking more at $10 million. Our sources tell us that the debt is now less than $5 million from being in the black... we believe that by this weekend that Hillary's debt will be finished.
Yesterday, both here and in private communication, I was told that Will Bower had backed off the $6 million number. I requested, but did not receive, any further evidence from those making this argument. I did a Google search with "Will Bower Hillary Clinton debt" and did not come up with any public statement to that effect. I did, however, find this blog post (which has since been deleted) dated July 23rd in which the author claimed to have learned from Will Bower that Hillary's debt had been erased.
If anybody can find a retraction or clarification of his July 10 statement, please send it to me and I will post it. I have tried to find it without success and I did not receive a response to my request yesterday. I was referred to a Clinton Campaign Debt FAQ written by a PUMA who regular visits MyDD. This FAQ only raises more questions for me:
Has PUMA been able to pay down Hillary’s campaign debt?
We won’t know the answer to that questions until the campaign files their next monthly report with the FEC on Wednesday, August 20th. If you recall, in early July, the Just Say No Deal coalition kicked off the July 4th/$20.08 fundraiser, which may have raised an estimated $6-10 M according to Will Bower.
The campaign filing for June shows that the campaign received $2.7 M in individual contributions. July’s report will include July 4th/PUMA fund raising donations. Will’s estimate may be accurate.
I've explained Will's estimates. He clarified those estimates several times in July on No We Won't/PUMA radio (I will have to find the shows). The revised estimates were blogged (again in July), I will have to find that as well.
If he "clarified" the $6-$10 million estimate in July, why was this PUMA quoting those discredited numbers in August?
The second argument was that some of the donations had gone into Hillary's senate campaign account. In my original diary, a PUMA posted this email, presumably sent by Will Bower to the members of the PUMA movement:
Hello, fellow PUMAs!
Last week, many of you reached into your pockets and generously gave what you could to help pay down Hillary's campaign debt.
However, the main contribution link at HillaryClinton.com had been redirected towards a different account. Instead of going to pay off her debt, it directed contributions towards her 2012 Senatorial campaign.
If you have any doubt as to where your contribution went, you must contact the financial department at HillaryClinton.com and let them know where you had intended it to go!
For them to be legally able to redirect your donation back into her debt fund, you must make your intentions clear to them.
Here are four ways you can contact them, to let your intentions be known. Again, this is only for if you are in doubt. If you are confident that your money went to pay off her debt, then you need not pursue this.
If you are in doubt, please contact (any or all) of the following, and encourage your PUMA contributing friends to do the same:
Thank you, and I hope you had a great holiday weekend!
What I find interesting about this email is that date it was sent out:
This is a copy of the email that Will sent out on July 6th regarding our July 4th/$20.08 fundraiser, which had kicked off a week earlier:
So four days before Will Bower went on national television to announce that the PUMAs were quickly erasing Hillary's debt, he knew that there was a problem with tracking the donations and getting them to the right place. When he went on Fox News, he made NO mention of the change at Hillary's website. Why? He was on a national platform and the ability to reach potential donors who were not on the PUMA mailing list, yet he said nothing.
Let's assume that a lot of money did, in fact, go to Hillary's Senate campaign. I visited the FEC website and reviewed the financial reports for Hillary's Senate campaign. During the 2007-2008 campaign cycle, through June 30, 2008, Hillary's campaign has received a total of $56,013.
Even if we assume that all $56,013 came from PUMA and all of it in June (this is important because the PUMAs are also arguing that the big fundraiser began in late June), this falls quite short. As these reports are filed quarterly (I think), we will have to wait until the end of September for an update. However, when asked about Bower's claims, a spokesperson for Hillary's presidential campaign said the following:
As far as we know, that $10 million is a fallacy. We have not seen that money. It is our understanding that these groups provide links to our website, and there is no way to track which sites those donations come from. We have received no donations from the PAC.
The third argument posed is that the PUMA's raised "close" to $6 million. Here is what one PUMA wrote to me:
Hillary raised close to $3m in June and $2m in July. That's about $5m total. The PUMA fundraising effort raised most of that money between late-June and July 4--in about a week. So the estimate of $6m wasn't that far off. Since her vendor debt is $11m and $5.2m of that is for Mark Penn, the remaining vendor debt is $5.8m and it looks like the PUMA effort paid a lot of that off.
According to Hillary's June and July monthly FEC reports, her campaign raised a total of $2,708,334.94 in June and $1,930,823.83 in July for a total of $4,639,158.77.
If PUMA claims credit for all of those numbers, it still falls well short of $6 million. I would imagine that there are a number of people who would enthusiastically object to the PUMAs taking credit for all $4.6 million of Hillary's money. The Obama campaign claims that its two fundraisers alone pulled in more than $500,000 for Hillary Clinton. That does not include the many unsolicited small donations made by Obama supporters who wanted to reach out to the Clintonistas after Hillary's concession speech. And Hillary has also held her own fundraisers, both public and private these last two months. In addition to contributing to her T-shirt fundraiser in July, I contributed more money in June in response to an email from Hillary, not PUMA. The PUMAs cannot attribute the entire $4.6 million to their July 4th/$20.08 fundraiser and their other explanations do not add up.
As a Hillary Clintonista, I am anxious to see her debt retired so she can get back to work in the Senate and on the campaign trail for Senators Obama and Biden. I appreciate any effort by any group to help retire her debt, but making false claims about phantom donations do not help her in this effort. If Will Bower cannot back up his claims with facts, he needs to stop talking.
For those of you who are interested in donating to Hillary's debt relief, you can follow this direct link to her presidential campaign.
[Updated at 7:00pm (PDT) by psychodrew]
I have known many of the PUMAs for many months, now, dating back to the primary wars when we were still on the same side. I got to know grlpatriot through the forums that the Clinton bloggers used during the primaries. After Hillary's concession, we maintained our friendship, even when some of her PUMA allies got mad at me for supporting Obama and when some of my Obama allies got mad at her for not supporting Obama. I can say with all honestly that grlpatriot is a true believer. She is not a Republican troll or a troublemaker. I believe that she is a person of conviction, even if I do not share those convictions.
In today's diary, I questioned Will Bower's honesty and I will not walk that back. Until he comes up with an explanation for what he has said and done, I stand by my words. But I should not have implied that grlpatriot was dishonest. In the comments and in private communication, she has objected to how I depicted her Clinton Campaign Debt FAQ.
Her position is that Will Bower did back off the $6 million figure in the PUMA radio shows, even if he didn't do so in a more public forum. Even if I did not know grlpatriot to be an honest person, the explanation makes sense. If Will Bower hadn't provided his own people with an explanation, there probably would have been an internal coup.
She also maintains that the Clinton Campaign Debt FAQ was written independently of Will Bower and she used the $6-$10 million figure because nobody was sure how much money had been raised and she (personally) believed it was possible that they could have reached that figure. Again, I am taking grlpatriot at her word on this point because I believe she is an honest person.
Finally, grlpatriot has pointed out that they are not professional political operatives, so they should be expected to make mistakes. Fair enough, rookies make mistakes, but that does not account for why Will Bower has not taken an opportunity to clarify his misleading statements on Hillary's debt. He's had numerous opportunities. Frankly, I think that political operatives, as they become more experienced, learn how to avoid saying "I was wrong."
In the end, I should not have implied that grlpatriot was being dishonest, especially without having spoken to her first, and for that, I apologize. However, I stand by my criticism of Will Bower. And I believe that the PUMAs were wrong to take Thursday's diary so personally. Will Bower is a public figure and he chose to make himself a public figure. He has given me no reason to believe that he is anything other than a dishonest, political opportunist looking to cash in on Hillary's name and defeat Barack Obama for the most selfish of reasons, fame. I'm not going to pull punches when someone is trying to put an anti-gay, anti-female, pro-war, Scalia-loving wingnut in the White House just to feed his ego.
So I repeat myself: If you don't like what I wrote, prove that I'm wrong.
Remember this video of Will Bower, a leader in the PUMA movement, announcing the PUMA's didn't need Obama's help raising money for Hillary?
Guess how much money she actually raised in July: $2.5 million.
What happened to that $6 million, Mr. Bower? I'll tell you what happened. It never existed. But admitting that his coalition wasn't raising money quickly enough wouldn't get him on Fox News, would it?
Did Mr. Bower ever stop to think that spreading these lies might make it harder for Sen. Clinton to raise money? Of course not. Because this isn't about Hillary Clinton. It's about Will Bower. And Will Bower being interviewed on television. And Will Bower becoming famous for taking down Obama and handing over the White House to McCain.
The PUMAs have raised a lot of very legitimate concerns about the nominating process and the need to reform the party. But when their megalomaniac leaders go around making ridiculous claims like $6 million and a "whitey" tape and 500 buses to Denver, it casts a shadow over the movement and lessens our chances of getting the reform we need.
To my friends on the other side, please ditch your narcissistic leaders and join the Clintonistas for Obama. This is the path that Hillary has chosen and has asked us to walk with her. I'm with Hillary. How about you?
Have you ever heard a "PUMA" talk about "putting country before party"? Well, that's a big crock of crap coming from them! If "PUMAs" love America so much, why are they so willing to risk our nation's future by allowing John McBush & the GOP four more years to cause more damage?
So anyways, check out my new rant at Yes to Democracy. Hopefully, anyone even considering going "PUMA" will consider what I & others here have said. As Hillary Clinton has said herself, there's just too much at stake to give the Bush-Cheney GOP cronies (including John McBush!) four more years to continue hurting America.
I've been told by a friend that the infamous Will Bower will be on MSNBC's "Hardball" tonight to discuss the "PUMA movement". While "PUMA" claims to be a group of "Hillary Clinton supporters fighting for democracy", we've pointed out repeatedly their real motives of aiding & abetting John McCain & the GOP agenda. Yet for some reason, the corporate media continues to allow "PUMA" a national podium to spread their lies.
We need to speak up. We need to let the corporate media know that neither Hillary Clinton nor we Hillary Clinton Democrats stand with "PUMA" in their scurrilous attempts to smear & trash Barack Obama. We need to tell the media that "PUMA" does NOT speak for us!
Please send an email to hardball@msnbc.com & urge them to tell the whole story about Hillary Clinton Democrats!
With every lie "PUMA" people tell about Hillary Clinton implicitly supporting John McCain or Barack Obama not being "a real American" or the media not being "fair" in only giving them 15 minutes of infamy instead of 45, they slander Hillary & trash her reputation. With every ugly, low-blow attack they toss at our Democratic Party, they attack all of us. They claim to be speaking in our names, and it's time we stop their lies & tell the truth!
Please email hardball@msnbc.com & ask them to ask the tough questions about "PUMA" and consider inviting someone like our friend Christina from yestodemocracy.org to debunk the "PUMA" smears. There's no time to waste. We can't let "PUMA" stand unchallenged, so please email hardball@msnbc.com & ask them to tell the real story on the "PUMA" con-artists.
If you're anything like me, you're getting sick & tired of all the ugly smears being thrown at Democrats by the McCain campaign... With the help of the corporate media. Fortunately, Democrats are now fighting back. Unfortunately, there's a group of so-called "Democrats" that are actively working to further the right-wing smears against us & our candidates.
OK, I'm sure you know who I'm talking about now. While Alegre's Corner obsesses over media-hyped "tension" between the Clintons & the Obamas, The Confluence celebrates whatever polls they can find showing McCain within "striking distance" of Obama. Oh yes, and let's not forget the continuing devolution of No $0.25 to complete right-wing propaganda machine. Basically, these "Clinton Democrat" PUMAs are carrying water for the GOP. Why?
Once upon a time, I was close to some of these "PUMAs" before they broke off from
the party and began to actively work against Democrats. These bloggers used to be rational people, working for Democratic candidates and progressive values instead of trashing them. I used to be awestruck by the good work they did for Hillary Clinton.
But ever since the primary season ended, I've wondered what went wrong. Has their anger really gotten the best of them while bringing out the worst? Have they become so gullible to GOP lies to actually start believing these untruths and proclaiming them as "important news"? What happened to the Hillary bloggers I once knew?
If these folks really think they are helping Hillary by smearing her, Barack Obama, and the entire Democratic Party, I think they're sorely mistaken. If anything, their efforts are only fueling efforts by the "Clinton Haters" to smear Hillary Clinton even more than they already had during the primaries by using these rumors to suggest that Hillary is trying to divide the party to make Obama lose. The "PUMA" followers who think what they're doing is "in honor of Hillary" need to rethink what they're doing.
This is why my friends and I are doing all we can to help Barack Obama win while also sending more & better Democrats to Congress. As true Hillary Clinton Democrats, we know the only way the progressive agenda Hillary advocated can be enacted is if & only if we have a Democratic President & Democratic Congress. If "PUMA" really cared about honoring Hillary Clinton, they'd be doing that instead of working full-time to spread lies for the Republicans.
It's time to let go of the dream. Hillary is going to be in the Senate for the foreseeable future. From Voteboth.com:
Because of your work, Senator Obama asked Hillary to be his keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention! We hope you are as pleased as we are that he has tapped Senator Clinton to deliver one of the most important messages of that crucial week—the very role that Barack Obama had four years ago.
Regretfully, this means that Senator Hillary Clinton is no longer under consideration as Senator Obama’s running mate.
For those of you who are considering withholding your support for the nominee:
We worked for Hillary for a combined ten years, so we know how many of you may be feeling. And to those who are hesitant to support Obama right now, we urge you to keep giving him the chance to earn your vote. We are confident he will.
Because, when it comes down to it, even the most ardent Hillary-supporter must ask himself or herself, “Do I want John McCain sending our soldiers off to more wars, giving Big Oil free rein to gouge us at the pump, and letting ideology overrule decisions that should be made on the basis of science and health?”
No. Never.
This is a little easier for me, because I never wanted her to be on the ticket with Obama. But I understand that others may be disappointed. However, we need to accept the reality that the Clinton Democrats are going to be shut out of the executive branch. With Hillary's keynote address, we are politely being shown the door.
For now, we're down. But are we out? Where do we, the Clinton Democrats, the Clintonistas for Obama and the PUMAs, go from here? Is there an alternative to (a) voting against the party—and thus against Hillary’s and our own interests—or (b) standing nauseous on the sidelines with an Obama sign and a phony smile?
One of my friends had a wonderful idea, an alternative to giving John McCain control of the White House:
"Deaniacs" are a brilliant example of what can be done. Dean has done a great deal for the party in my eyes and the fifty state strategy is so important! And think about this, what if PUMAs put all that energy into getting their local democrats elected? Krazy huh?
Think about this for a second. Our alternatives in 2008 are Obama and McCain. Period. Hillary is not going to be resurrected. If the PUMAs succeed in tilting the election to McCain, the Clintons--and their supporters--are finished. We are the scum that extended the war in Iraq and put two more Alito's on the Court.
But suppose we decide to attack from the bottom rather than the top.
Obama is all about big speeches in front of large, adoring crowds that will go away after November 4th. His "youth voters" and "Obamacans" aren't the committed Democrats that many of us are. For the most part, the college students don’t understand the hard work that changing this country is going to require. And the Obamacans will wipe their hands of the Democrats after the cathartic relief of punishing GOP leaders. The day after the election, these "Democrats for a Day" go back to their own lives and we step in. We start running for local offices. We take over key positions. The Clinton Democrats re-take the party from the bottom.
Right now, the latte/arugula wing of the Democratic Party thinks that they have successfully marginalized the Clinton Democrats. Their guy is on the top of the ticket. Hillary is out. The DNC has moved to Chicago. Bill is back to fighting AIDS in Africa. Their guy is so confident of success, he started mapping out the legislation for 2009 in a meeting with House Democrats.
Let them think that they are in charge. Meanwhile, we organize at the bottom (and give our money to Hillary) and we reshape the Democratic Party for the future. Because in the end, that's what this is really about.
Yesterday there was a diary posted on MyDD that made the Recommended List entitled 'What if Obama was a Republican?' In it, the diarist - a self-described Republican - outlined his/her support for Obama. But after reading the diary and following rah-rah comments, I got to thinking about the complexities of partisanship, progressivism, PUMA's and the General Election.
Seeing this diary both annoyed and perplexed me. I asked myself, is MyDD viewed by some as a personal advertisement for a particular candidate or rather a champion for progressive values? I think that it is safe to say that people who believe in liberal values and agenda to governance have very little in common with Republicans. So save for wanting the democratic nominee to win. Do we agree on much?
And while I share the 'big tent' philosophy, I also believe in liberal ideology and Obama's will to govern with these principles.
As well, I have seen PUMA's (save for the bunch that have really gone off the deep end) be criticized for not supporting Obama. Many of which are life-long Democrats and state that they aren't voting for McCain but leaving the ballot spot blank in protest.
This is the paradox.
I shared my confusion with some close friends today and got some interesting answers - but the following stands out the most to me.
I find it counter-intuitive to turn against Democrats who don't like the nominee while welcoming Republicans who are angry with their party. The former shares are values and beliefs while the latter do not. I don't see why we can't just welcome both. Why has expressing enthusiastic support (as grudging support does not seem to be enough these days) for a single candidate become a litmus test for MyDD?
So I'll throw it the following out there to the community:
If a Republican supports Obama but not the Democratic party ideals and/or downticket races - then how are they any better/different than PUMA who will not support Obama but assuredly the Democratic downticket races?
You know what? I'm really starting to get sick & tired of all the hubbub about "PUMA". I'm sick of the attention the right-wing noise machine is throwing at them. I'm sick of their use of uglyright-wingsmearsto attackBarack Obama, his family, and all of us Democrats (now including Bill & Hillary Clinton!) who are supporting him.
I'm so sick & tired of the "PUMA" fraud, but I don't know what to do... Or wait, may I? Yes, I think I do know what to do.
If you're a true-blue Democrat like me, I'm sure you're also sick & tired of all this "PUMA" crap. You'd probably rather be out working for Obama than dealing with them. You'd probably rather be spending time & money supporting great Democrats than dealing with them. I know... I feel the same way!
So you know what? Let's put an end to the "PUMA" madness once & for all. It's time for the truth to set us all free!
If you know any Hillary Clinton Democrats who are still saddened from primary season, share the facts with them in a respectful way. Tell them who John McBush really is. Tell them what Barack Obama really stands for. Tell them where the smears against Obama are really coming from. And most importantly, share with them why Hillary Clinton herself believes it's so important for us to ensure Barack Obama wins this fall.
We will NOT let "PUMA" get in the way of our Democratic victory. Let's keep doing what we know is right. We can win, and "PUMA" can put itself in the dustbin of history. :-)
Wow. It looks like the "PUMAs" won't be able to mock Barack Obama's fundraising any more. Check out this message I just got from the camapign... And remember to take action!
Clintonistas for Obama Reader --
I have some big news we want to share with you.
In the month of June, supporters like you helped raise $52 million. And together with the DNC, we now have nearly $72 million in the bank. That's a very strong financial position to be in.
But we remain at a massive disadvantage to our opponents.
As I mentioned in my video message earlier in the week, the McCain Campaign and the Republican National Committee finished June with nearly $100 million in the bank.
We can't stop now. It's going to take everything we've got to defeat John McCain and his allies in November.
Can you make a donation of $5 now to strengthen our movement for change?
I know this isn't the first time we've asked you for financial support, and it won't be the last.
We have developed a strategy -- a very aggressive strategy -- that will only work if our millions of supporters continue to contribute their time and their money.
That strategy will work, and it has to. The stakes are too high and the need for change too great.
Some of my friends and former allies are working on a movement to convince superdelegates to support Hillary Clinton at the convention in November. Earlier this week, a front page diary at a well-known blog celebrated a rumor that eight Obama superdelegates indicated that they would vote for Hillary if a roll-call vote were held in Denver.
Now, they are technically correct that, under the rules of the party, Senator Obama does not officially become the nominee until the delegates cast their votes at the convention. It is possible that something could happen that would force him off the ticket. However, if they are correct, and Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee in Denver, she will be doomed in November.
The first problem is getting Barack Obama out of the way. An email campaign organized by a group of bloggers, not matter how dedicated, will not be enough. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee. The superdelegates decided this race. They provided Senator Obama with his margin of victory. They have already decided that he is sufficiently experienced and electable. A flood of emails will not convince the superdelegates that they have made a mistake. A trickle of superdelegates that narrowly puts Hillary over the top is not a realistic scenario. It's going to require a large event outside the control of this dedicated group of Clinton supporters.
To that end, a lot of these Clinton supporters have been pointing to what they perceive as weak polling numbers. But a drop in poll numbers will not be enough. An extramarital affair or even an illegitimate child would not be enough. He would have to be caught engaging in (or having had engaged in) activity that borders on criminal and something for which a subordinate cannot take the fall. Although some in the PUMA movement claim to have highly damaging information against Michelle Obama, nothing has surfaced. In this day and age of information technology, if information of such a damaging nature existed, it would already have surfaced.
In the unlikely event that such information was uncovered, would the superdelegates hand the nomination to Hillary? The superdelegates are professional politicians and party loyalists. Replacing Senator Obama at the convention would come at a steep political price. His most die-hard supporters would certainly resist and his two core constituencies, the African-American community and his young voters, would be demoralized. The party would be ripped apart as some supporters cried fowl and others walked away crushed. African-American elected officials would be torn between the party and their constituents. It would open up a rift so huge that no politician could heal the wounds before the general election.
If Hillary were to suddenly emerge the victor in Denver, is it logistically possible for her to win the race? Even if Senator Obama walked away gracefully and his supporters lined up behind Hillary, she would find herself, on August 28, 2008, only 68 days away from the general election with no staff and no plans. She would have to build an organization, find a running mate (or settle for the running mate vetted by Obama), and create a strategy with almost no preparation. Remember, much of her primary campaign staff has already gone in different directions, some signing contracts that will employ them through the rest of the campaign. Even if everything else goes her way and she is able to integrate Obama's coalition into hers with no losses, mounting a nation-wide general election campaign in such a short period of time would be impossible.
If this great looming scandal did come to light, I would expect that the superdelegates would stand by Barack Obama, even if it does mean losing the general election. Because Hillary Clinton would certainly be defeated in November, Democrats would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by replacing Obama. The sudden demise of Obama's candidacy would likely cost Democrats the African-American vote and possibly even an entire generation of new, young voters, perhaps permanently.
The effects of this rift would not be limited to the top of the ticket. All of the projections for gains in the House and the Senate are based on the assumption that Obama would drive up turnout among African-Americans and young voters. If African-Americans and younger voters stay home, some of the tougher Senate races (North Carolina, Mississippi) will be put out of reach and many of the seats we have long expected to pick up (Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico) would likely be unwinnable. Mary Landrieu (LA) would certainly be defeated with a depressed African-American vote. With a Republican president and vice-president, that would hand control of the Senate back to the GOP. A similar scenario would certainly emerge in the House of Representatives.
Finally, the leaders of the "It's Not Over Yet" movement have forgotten one more essential detail. Under such a scenario, would Hillary even accept the nomination? I suspect that she would not. First, as outlined above, she would have no chance at winning. Second, she would forever be tainted in the African-American community for having replaced their historic nominee and Hillary values her relationship with the African-American community.
So my friends in the blogosphere are incorrect when they belittle this movement as "praying for a miracle." In reality, they aren't praying for a miracle. They are praying for a disaster of the highest order, one that would cost Democrats not only the White House, but possibly even the House and the Senate. It would be a setback to every single progressive cause that Hillary Clinton has dedicated her life to advancing.
This time, there will be no comeback for Hillary Clinton. The people have spoken. The party has spoken. For better or worse, Barack Obama is the nominee. The only alternative is defeat.
That $200 you could have donated to Hillary Clinton's debt relief or to other female candidates can instead be used for the first ever PUMA Civil War conference. On the weekend of August 8-10, while most of us--even the political junkies here at Clintonistas for Obama--will watching the Beijing Olympics, the PUMAs will be meeting in Washington, DC at the Pre-Convention PUMA Conference (PCPC). Today, Riverdaughter called upon all her "Conflucians" to join:
The purpose of PCPC will be to organize PUMA for the purposes of the Denver convention and to define our role going forward. We see great potential in PUMA as being an organization that keeps an eye on the major parties. Right now, there is no particular entity whose responsibility it is to make sure that the parties play by the rules. There is no group that holds the party players accountable to the voters for the decisions they make and the propaganda they generate. PUMAs are now to assume the mantle of responsibility that others have abandoned. We will become the referees. We hope to represent the voice of the voters who will give democracy back to the electorate. We want to make sure that our votes are counted, our primary results are respected, and what is important to us is recognized and included in party platforms. And unlike more ideologically motivated groups that have sprung up in the last several years, it is our desire to find that place where most Americans are and base our positions on principle, and to survey the political landscape from those principles, in order to resist the cults of personality and fad movements which have siphoned our strength and diminished our role as voters.
I think that I have made my sypathies and affection for the PUMAs quite clear. I absolutely do not agree with them, but I understand their anger and I have defended them when they are called "turncoats" or "dead-enders." I believe that casting a protest vote at the ballot box is a fair use of one's constitutional right to vote and I don't begrudge anybody for this. As far as I'm concerned, one needn't be a straight-ticket voter to be a good Democrat.
That said, this conference is a huge mistake. It has the potential to become a spectacle of the highest order because the PUMAs themselves, are quite divided on goals, strategy, and motivation.
Goals--Some PUMAs want to teach the party lessons. Others want to defeat Barack Obama. Others want Hillary to be on the ticket. Still others want her to run third party.
Strategy--Some PUMAs are supporting McCain. Some will stay home. Some will vote third party. Others will vote, but leave president section blank. And that changes if Hillary on the ticket. Fewer will support McCain, and some will still say home. But many will vote for Obama.
Motivation--Some PUMAs are motivated by angry emotions. Others want revenge. But many others--and I know this because I've calmly and rationally discussed this with them--are motivated by a since of principle. They believe that the process was unfair (as do I). They believe that the DNC should have defended Hillary against the sexism as forcefully as they stood up against Fox News Channel's smears on Obama. They feel that the only way to reform the party is to fight party unity. They are good progressive who believe that they are acting in the best long-term interest of the party.
When If PUMA meets in Washington, DC, all of these divisions will be on full display. When you have that many angry people in a room at one time, people who have different agendas but believe that theirs is the most morally justified,consensus and co-ordination is impossible. If the divisions do not end in chaos, infighting, and backstabbing, it will be because nobody showed up in the first place. The media will be more than happy to replay on a continuous loop video of angry PUMAs denouncing our nominee and the Democratic Party alongside video of largely empty conference rooms.
If the PUMAs want to support Hillary Clinton, they should donate their $200 to helping pay down her debt. Or they could spend their money donating to the superdelegates who supported her in the primaries. As I wrote two weeks ago, a number of Hillary's supporters in the House are facing primary challenges and will need the financial support for the general election. They can also donate to Emily's List, an organizaiton that proudly stood beside Hillary throughout the process.
If the PUMAs want to reform the party, they should begin organizing themselves as a pro-reform movement within the party. There are a lot of Democrats, many of them wealthy, prominent supporters of Hillary Clinton, who believe that the process was flawed and in need of reform. If Obama is elected, he is likely to install people at the DNC who will protect that process that elected him. In that event, a strong reform movement will be needed to hold the DNC's feet to the fire.
This conference is a bad idea. It could be the undoing of the PUMA movement, rendering it more irrelevant than it is now, but it also has the potential to embarrass the participants, the nominee, and the party. Images of more Harriet Christian moments only benefit the Republicans. Don't waste your money on a trip to DC. Donate to Hillary. Empower her by donating to HillPAC, her political action comittee. Donate to progressive causes and progressive candidates. Build up, don't tear down.
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. :-)
I'm going to get flamed for resurrecting the primary wars. Maybe I shouldn't, but with the recent influx of PUMA members, I figure it can't hurt - we're already back to attacking and arguing with each other, which is a real shame because we were doing so well for awhile there. Some of us - including myself - are being pretty rude to the people with whom we disagree, and I doubt it's helpful. Still, I'm disinclined to stop because I have little patience remaining for people who refuse to support (or even tolerate) Obama as Hillary so openly has.
The two warring factions - the PUMAs and the people who are supporting the nominee - tend to blame one another (and the other candidate) for the divisions within the party, but I've begun to think that everyone involved shares some of the responsibility for the rift. Hillary and Barack certainly contributed to it, and their supporters magnified each point of contention and kept it alive. Outrage fueled outrage, and somewhere along the line, everything spiraled out of control.
So how did we get here? Is Hillary partially responsible?
Absolutely. While I will never buy into the "Hillary is a race-baiter" meme (and please, let's not start that argument in the comment thread), I'll admit that she was very harsh sometimes. The "shame on you" episode comes to mind, though I agreed with her. She was occasionally unfair, and she hit below the belt - when she grabbed hold of bittergate and employed a Republican tactic by calling Obama an elitist, I shook my head in disappointment. When she released an ad invoking Osama bin Laden, I watched it with wide-eyed horror. When she piled onto Obama during a debate in which he was being attacked by the mods, I frowned and sighed in exasperation. She mocked him at one of her rallies. She contributed to the problem.
Is Barack partially responsible?
Sure. When he attacked Hillary's healthcare plan with a flyer that strongly resembled the Harry and Louise ad from the `90s, I was furious: I saw it as not only an attack on my candidate, but an attack on universal healthcare, which was my top issue. When his campaign sent out a memo about what they perceived as an "insidious pattern" of allegedly racially insensitive remarks, I saw red. When he called her "divisive" and said she would do anything to win, I clenched my teeth until my jaw ached. I considered his "You're likeable enough" joke mocking and rude. He contributed to the problem.
But here's the thing: They were both fighting for the nomination, and they were supposed to attack each other. It was inevitable, and though they both took it too far at times, it was not unexpected. It wasn't unusual, it wasn't unprecedented. So from whence do the vitriol and animosity stem?
I think the hatred comes from their supporters (though most people know nothing of the blog wars). For one thing, each of us supported either an African American or a woman, and we expected to see discrimination. Many of us were overzealous and hyper-vigilant - we were constantly on the alert for any hint of bigotry or sexism, and though both were unquestionably present, I think we began seeing them when they weren't really there. We manufactured our own controversies. We parsed every phrase, analyzed every word, and scrutinized every expression. Not everyone did, but enough of us engaged in it to create a great deal of division. We were cruel to each other. We stopped listening. Obama supporters ruled DailyKos, and Hillary supporters fled here and largely took over. We developed resentments not only against Hillary or Obama, but also against each other. We stopped communicating, and our dialogue often devolved into vicious ad hominem attacks. We called each other cult members, racists, Republicans, and sexists. For a long time, I was angry at Obama supporters in general and decided that theirs was a top-down mentality; my disdain for them was deeply ingrained.
But just as our candidates' supporters contributed to the division, in my case they healed it. On MyDD, I discovered quite a few Clinton supporters who had come somewhat unhinged - their vehemence disturbed me; as they offended my sense of fairness and moderation, they inadvertently helped me forget my anger. They accidentally opened my mind toward the decent and reasonable Obama supporters. Several of them listened to my concerns and treated me with respect, despite my loathing for their candidate. In particular, I began getting along with Student Guy, ragekage, brit, fogiv, thatpurplestuff, Kysen, Setrak, hootie, mady, Spacemanspiff, and map (pardon me if I forgot your name - there are a lot of you). Those people were always thoughtful and helpful to me. Ragekage did manage to shame me on one occasion, but he wasn't hateful about it. When I explained my anger to him, he listened and responded to me politely and intelligently. I remember thinking, "Brit supports Obama and cares about his candidacy. I must be missing something..." I believe he had a similar thought about Hillary. I came to like a lot of Obama supporters, and I got to know them better than Clinton supporters because our relationships required more compromising, talking, explaining, sympathizing, and sharing to maintain. As I got to know them, I began looking at their candidate differently; surely so many smart, funny, considerate people wouldn't be supporting a dud.
So who can we blame for most of the division in the party? It's hard to say, though at the moment I tend to blame PUMAs the most, but to some extent, both candidates and their supporters are at fault. I don't know how to go about unifying the party; I've tried to reach out to several Hillary holdouts, but they've universally rebuffed my efforts. I lose my patience with them quickly, so here I sit, unable to do for the PUMAs what so many Obama supporters did for me. Maybe it would help if we all tried to put ourselves in each other's places. Maybe we should try to walk a mile in our antagonists' shoes, as they say. Unfortunately, I seem incapable of properly doing so, and if anyone should be able to understand PUMA, it should be someone like me, who once claimed I could never vote for Obama. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for long-time Obama supporters to see things from those people's perspective. Maybe it would help if we all admitted we were sometimes at fault, maybe if everyone accepted some responsibility.
Or maybe we should just ignore people who can't be reasoned with and hope they come around in their own time. Sadly, that may be the only solution.
I’ll freely admit that I don’t like PUMA. I think it’s a terrible idea to work against the Democratic nominee, especially since PUMA members believe in most of the values Hillary believes in. I don’t fully understand what they’re trying to accomplish. Are they punishing the party, or do they think Hillary has a chance to win the nomination? I agree with them on many things – caucuses are undemocratic, the process was unfair, Hillary was treated like sh*t by the media. So I concur with them in a lot of ways, but in weighing my choices, I’ve come to the conclusion that supporting Obama is the only logical path to take. From a purely selfish point of view, if I want to protect my own rights as a woman, he’s the only option for me. While I understand the PUMAs’ pain, I do think they’re being somewhat irrational, and I’m furious at a lot of them for working against Hillary and harassing those of us who are trying to do what she asked us to do.
And yet, on some fundamental level, I understand them. They’re hurt and angry. They worked hard for a woman I love and invested a lot of their time, money, energy, and emotion in her campaign – just as I did. I respect that. It’s painful when people I used to get along with call me a faux Clinton supporter because I’ve been open-minded about Obama. It’s painful because what I’ve done – what all of us have done – has been hard. No one is enjoying this. There was a time when my excitement and happiness about the 2008 presidential elections was nearly rapturous. I couldn’t wait to see Hillary rip McCain to shreds in the debates. She’s a fighter, a scrapper, a champion, and I couldn’t wait to see her take on (and take down) the GOP. Whenever I felt sad or distressed about anything in my personal life, I used to close my eyes and imagine watching Hillary being sworn into office; it never failed to bring a smile to my face. I gave her more money than I could afford, and spent hours upon hours making calls for her. It didn't work out. The dream died. But I’d do it all over again in a heartbeat.
Despite the hurtful things they’ve said, I hold out hope that most of the PUMA people, particularly alegre, will return to us.
The people for whom I have no sympathy, however, are the purity trolls who are accusing us of being concern trolls. In attacking C4O, they’re attacking linfar, who has given her phenomenal support to the Democratic nominee, and who was arguably the strongest advocate for Hillary on MyDD, aside from alegre. They’re attacking atdnext, who’s gone SO far out of his way to build this group and work for Obama. They’re attacking canadian gal, who I consider a cherished friend, and who was consistently the most polite, fair, and level-headed Clinton supporter on MyDD. They’re making a special effort to harass psychodrew, who has made many sacrifices and is fighting to defeat John McCain, despite his anger and pain over Hillary’s loss. Naturally, they’re also attacking me and disregarding the fact that I’ve been defending Obama for over three months, much to the annoyance of other Clinton supporters I respected. I was loathe to do it, too. A lot of Hillary supporters learned to have little tolerance for me. CG and I always got along, though we sometimes disagreed, and I got on well with aurelius, Denny Crane, and a couple of others. Beyond that, I was not well liked by the people with whom I agreed; I was often ignored, and sometimes faced outright hostility.
Other than the C4Os and a handful of Clinton supporters who never spurned me, most of my friends on MyDD are Obama supporters. For months, I’ve been friends with people who were thorns in the side of the majority of Hillary’s advocates. I listened to Obama supporters’ grievances, and then I told them mine in reasonable (most of the time), measured tones. We got to know each other better than I’ve ever gotten to know most of the Clinton supporters, and it was because we were forced to talk in order to work out our differences and come to a mutual understanding. I didn’t get to know Hillary supporters as well precisely because I agreed with them – I read their comments, nodded in silent agreement, and uprated them; there was little need for dialogue between people I agreed with. Maintaining friendships with Obama supporters involved a good deal of compromise and a lot of talking, explaining, sympathizing, and sharing. Those people helped me see Obama in a new light, and I helped them learn to look at Hillary in a new way. I adore the people who showed me that Obama has many admirable qualities, and I owe them a debt of gratitude. Because of them, I’ve probably had a much easier time giving my support to their candidate than most of the other C4Os have had. We’ve all made sacrifices in the name of our candidate, and in the name of the Democratic nominee. For people to accuse us of being trolls is beyond the pale. Forgive my melodrama, but…
How. Dare. They?
How dare they demean and denigrate our efforts? How dare they attack us when we’re doing more to elect the nominee than they are? You will notice that they haven’t written any pro-Obama or anti-McCain diaries lately. They may have written a few hit pieces on Hillary, but that’s about it. Hardly a contribution to MyDD. I’ve rarely seen more divisive people, and their antics are dangerous because, quite frankly, they help dampen my enthusiasm for Obama, and they reinforce the idea that Obama supporters are impulsive jackasses. I know that most Obama supporters are good people, but a lot of Hillary supporters still haven’t realized that basic fact. That’s NOT what we want PUMA people to see. We don’t want them to see Obama supporters attacking us for supporting their candidate – why would anyone want to help him if they know they’re going to be attacked by the people who should be working alongside them?
I’m sick and tired of these people. I don’t really know why they get under my skin so much. Maybe it’s because I think we all deserve a little civility, considering what good sports we’re being. That’s why I’m taking a short break from MyDD. I’m tired of fighting a two-front war: An influx of PUMAs and purity trolls doesn’t make for a pleasant environment. I know I’ll be back soon; people are asking me to return, and I know it’s somewhat cowardly and immature for me to abandon a site I like because I’m avoiding inconsiderate trolls. Still, I need awhile to get my head on straight. I don’t want to lose my cool. In the meantime, we have several Obama supporters defending us, and that makes me happy. It makes me think I should return as soon as possible so that I can stand up for them, too.
But for just a short while, I’m going to sit back and watch the destructive purity trolls damage their nominee. If they want to cut off their own noses to spite their faces, who am I to stop them?
[EDIT: BN finally wrote a diary attacking McCain and the MSM. It's a miracle! Wonder if it had anything to do with some of us pointing out that we were doing more work for the nominee that s/he was? Doesn't matter, though: s/he's still a lying, useless, divisive sack of crap.]
When Hillary Clinton conceded several weeks ago I was sad. I truly wanted her to win the Democratic nomination and become the president in January 2009.
But....
It.Didn't.Happen.
Since that time we have seen the PUMA movement take hold. Which for those living under a rock, stands for Party Unity My Ass. I am not going to get into a diatribe about them because in some ways I understand what they are doing and somewhat how they are feeling.
- Disappointed that Hillary will not be the President in 2009? Okay.
- Don't agree with some of his policies? Okay.
- Reviled at his campaign's tactics during the primary? Okay.
- Think Hillary would have been the better candidate? Okay.
- Dislike Obama? Okay.
But you know what? THE PRIMARY IS OVER.
And for those that are thinking of voting for McCain? Stop and think what you are doing -you are throwing Hillary under the bus. Everything she stands for has very little to do with the Republican party ideals and voting for them would be a slap in her face. Yes - a slap.
As my good pal Kysen wrote:
But, opting not to vote? Voting only downticket? Writing in Hillary? Fine. Whatever. Seems a bit like holding one's breath to get one's way....but, at least it is not sullying Hillary's name.
So for the love of god - if you cannot vote for the Democratic nominee - people may not like your decision but will understand it. But DO NOT betray Hillary and everything she stands for by voting for McCain.
If you're going to vote for a Republican, you need to learn how to think like a Republican. I can think of no one better than the late great Ann Richards to explain this to us. Ann Richards meant a lot to Hillary Clinton. During the primaries, the Clinton campaign posted this tribute to her:
1. You have to believe that the nation's current 8-year prosperity was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but yesterday's gasoline prices are all Clinton's fault.
2. You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.
3. You have to be against all government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.
4. You have to believe that AIDS victims deserve their disease, but smokers with lung cancer and overweight individuals with heart disease don't deserve theirs.
5. You have to appreciate the power rush that comes with sporting a gun.
6. You have to believe...everything Rush Limbaugh says.
7. You have to believe that the agricultural, restaurant, housing and hotel industries can survive without immigrant labor.
8. You have to believe God hates homosexuality, but loves the death penalty.
9. You have to believe society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.
10. You have to believe that pollution is OK as long as it makes a profit.
11. You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.
12. You have to believe Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde were really faithful husbands.
13. You have to believe speaking a few Spanish phrases makes you instantly popular in the barrio.
14. You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.
15. You have to be against government interference in business, until your oil company, corporation or Savings and Loan is about to go broke and you beg for a government bail out.
16. You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your hatred for AIDS victims, homosexuals, and President Clinton.
17. You have to believe government has nothing to do with providing police protection, national defense, and building roads.
18. You have to believe a poor, minority student with a disciplinary history and failing grades will be admitted into an elite private school with a $1,000 voucher.
(Proudly cross-posted at Democratic PartyBuilder)
Hey, everyone! I'd like to start a new tradition here at C4O. I want for us to do a weekly strategy session, when we can all get together and discuss some important action items. So are you ready to join me for our important weekly strategy session?
First off, I want us to talk about the new right-wing smear campaign against a promiment "Clintonista for Obama" and good friend of ours, Gen. Wesley Clark. Because Wes Clark isn't afraid to tell the truth about John McCain's dangerous plans to keep our troops mired in Iraq indefinitely, the radical right is now having its friends in the corporate media trash the General. That's why VoteVets now has a peitition up for us to support Wes Clark. But still, what else can we do? Can you help me come up with ideas?
In other news, Chris Dodd is asking us to become citizen co-sponsors of his amendment to the FISA compromise bill that would strip retroactive immunity from telecom companies that aided and abetted the Bush Administration in warantless wiretapping. What else can we do to support Dodd? What can we do to save our Fourth Amendment privacy rights? There's a great group up and running on "MyBO" (the Obama campaign's online community) calling on Barack Obama to do the right thing... How can we support their efforts?
And finally... We just have to figure out a smart strategy to take care of "PUMA". One of our fabulous community members informed me about Yes to Democracy, a fantastic clearinghouse site where we can get the real facts about what the "PUMA movement" is all about. So what can we do to support their efforts to actually support what Hillary Clinton is calling for us to do? We now have a wonderful group of committed Democrats that's continuing to grow and flourish... But what can we do to take that to the next level? I'd love to have your input.
OK, so do you need a quick review of our agends for this week's strategy session. Well, here goes:
- Defend Wes Clark Against the Right-wing Smears
- Save our Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights
- Stopping the "PUMA Madness"
Are to ready to help me do something? :-)
1. No attacks on posters or other commenters. 2. No thread hijacking is allowed. 3. Foul language is permitted, but language that is demeaning of one's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity is NOT.
The administrators reserve the right to moderate and/or delete any comments that violate the Terms of Use.
Comments, suggestions, or complaints may be sent to c4oblog@yahoo.com
Posts
