…With A Capital “T” that Rhymes with “P” that Stands for PUMA!
By Jimmie on Jul 20, 2008 in Hillary!, Johnny Mac, The Obamessiah
Oh yes there’s trouble! Right here in Obamessiahland! Apparently, quite a few Democrats read up on their party’s nomination rules and they found something that I was saying last month. Barack Obama isn’t the nominee until there’s a vote in Denver at the convention. Those folks aren’t at all happy with the Exalted One and they, in the words of Malcolm Reynolds, aim to misbehave.
In response to the grumblings, the former Chair of the Democratic National Committee and its current Secretary sent out an e-mail that basically says that the PUMAs (as the disgruntled ones call themselves) are a bunch of people who “carp, complain, and criticize” who should shut up and fall in line.
Yeah, that’s a great idea. That’s going to bring their donations in by the truckload and I can only imagine how motivated they’ll be to help out in local Obama campaign offices.
The PUMAs are an increasingly large problem for Barack Obama. They are, largely, people who are willing to spend a lot of their money and time on the Democratic candidate and if he loses them, they will spend that money and time making darned sure that he doesn’t get elected. The McCain campaign is already courting them with some initial degree of success. Politics is intensely personal on the left and if these PUMAs feel that they are being shoved to the margins or are handled like they were *gasp* Republicans, their ire will be intense and they will turn to McCain just to spite the rest of their party.
The Obamessiah ought to curb his staggering arrogance (you know like touring around Europe as if he’s the President already and designing his very own seal), at least until he actually has the nomination. If he doesn’t, he might just find himself in the middle of a political knife-fight for which he is in no way ready.
(via Robert McCain and Don Surber)
Sphere: Related Content
Stumble it!
There’s not much substance here.
It’s not a surprise to any Democrat how the nominating process works. That was the whole point behind early speculation that Hillary would continue campaigning up to the convention, or try to force a floor vote. It’s the point behind the revanchist draft-Hillary movement that has been in evidence ever since Obama clinched the delegate count. Nobody needed you to tell them it’s possible to do what they’ve been trying to do all along.
You’re right that the come-to-Jesus e-mail was heavy-handed. We’ll see how much backlash it creates.
But you’re nuts if you think the Hillary contingent is going to support McCain. That’s simply not happening. Some of them may be angry enough to refuse to volunteer or contribute for Obama - and that may be enough in a close race to tip the balance for McCain - but that’s a far cry from politicking or even voting for him. And they’re certainly not goig to embrace a pro-war, pro-oil-company, anti-choice throwback just to “spite” their own party.
I don’t know if politics is “intensely personal on the left” - it’s intense, certainly, but I don’t know what you mean by the rest. Surely “Obamania” has nothing on the rapturous stupidity that always did, and still does, surround Ronald Reagan, or even the reported swooning over George Bush and his pathetic flight suit. And wasn’t Donald Rumsfeld supposedly some kind of sex symbol at one time, simply because he advocates indiscriminate bombings? It’s not the left that gets so worked up over its political figures that they can’t think straight. At any rate, if politics is “personal” that emotion is surely directed against the right as much as it is in favor of the left’s own candidates. Liberals may not be able to agree on much, but they are in full agreement that they hate conservatives.
As for “arrogance”, that charge seems largely to stem from the fact that Obama doesn’t apologize for himself. Get used to it. Your time is past
Kevin T. Keith | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
You may be right, Keith, about the PUMAs, but what they’re saying isn’t quite what you’re saying.
From where you sit, you’d better pray that party dogma is stronger than the insults that are pushing them away.
And as for the “arrogance” charge, it stems from the fact that I believe he’s shown himself incredibly arrogant. Remember that he has not actually won a contested election for office in his entire political life. Not once. He’s not won the nomination yet either. Like Han Solo said, don’t get cocky, kid.
Jimmie | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Jimmie….
I followed you back here to find a site I have seen before. Thanks for stopping by.
As for the article - you are completely right and Kevin over there is full of sh**.
But you’re nuts if you think the Hillary contingent is going to support McCain. That’s simply not happening. Some of them may be angry enough to refuse to volunteer or contribute for Obama - and that may be enough in a close race to tip the balance for McCain - but that’s a far cry from politicking or even voting for him. And they’re certainly not goig to embrace a pro-war, pro-oil-company, anti-choice throwback just to “spite” their own party.
Kevin - this isn’t about spite or teaching the party anything. This is about knowing that the messiah is completely wrong and is going to hurt this country worse than he already has. McCain is a known commodity with a full dem. congress to keep him in check. We can do four more years on our heads - but that ain’t gonna happen. Just listen to rush and look how they are trying to corral a stampede.
Stop by again Jimmie!
Diamond
DiamondTiger | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Thanks, Diamond. Your site looked awfully familiar, too. Isn’t it funny the way the net leads us back to places we’ve been?
I think your read is right. From the outside, I’m seeing a lot of dissatisfaction with the way the Obama campaign and its proxies in the MSM have generally treated former Clinton supporters for the past couple of months. I don’t know how it will play out but I’d bet that it’s going to hurt them come November.
Jimmie | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Jimmie -
There is a segment of pumas that is really pissed about how Clinton was treated - but by and large, they are incensed about Michigan and Florida and how that actually violates an unwritten law of the Constitution. I know that the people aren’t really allowed to vote for the president, but most people don’t know that. They believe that their vote should count and that it shouldn’t be taken away from them and given to someone they didn’t vote for, i.e. 600,000 uncommitted and Hillary voters in MI. That’s the crux right there - and they now do not trust the DNC or Obama at all. They can put all their fears of the Republicans aside because the threat of Obama and the new gestapo is bigger. That’s why they will vote for McCain if Hillary’s name isn’t put into nomination. If it is, Hillary will win…period…end of discussion. The DNC knows this…that’s why they are stalling by saying her name will be on the ballot - not the same. That is what I have been hearing for over 2 months now.
DiamondTiger | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
p.s. been an indie for 24 years….former dem.
DiamondTiger | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
What the DNC did made no sense to me at all. It’s been squawking for eight years about voter disenfranchisement and then it set up a situation where it would disenfranchise two whole states on purpose with no good way out. It didn’t help that the Republicans were quietly noting that they had the same problem but they chose to cut the states’ delegate number in half and that their voters’ votes would still count.
It still puzzles me how the DNC/Obama campaign could run such a poor effort to this point. John McCain is a horrible candidate. He’s gone out of his way to tick off conservatives and he seems to be physically unable of getting even the slightest bit mean toward the Democrats. By all rights, he shouldn’t be nearly as close as he is in the polls. Yet he is.
I’m technically an indie, too.
I re-registered Libertarian, which in my state counts as an “other”, back in 2000. Oddly enough, I hated the choices the RNC gave me during that Presidential race and saw how far it had slid from the Party of Reagan I cherished.
Jimmie | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
I’m going to have to disagree with DiamondTiger about Hillary’s chances if nominated. If she is nominated now the African-American vote is going to be “depressed” (as in non-existent). With out 70%-80% of that vote no Democrat will win. That dynamic was already in place when Obama became the defacto nominee. I think the largest part of the “super” delegates have looked at this problem and determined that once lost the African-American vote as a near solid block could be gone forever, whereas the old white women vote is already somewhat fractured and most of the democratic part will come back.
martin | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Martin,
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. The MSM and DNC want everyone to believe this is just the “old, white women” block. It isn’t - it’s everybody else. Men, asians, latinos…etc.
Look at all the states that Clinton won after super tuesday without the “black” vote and how much she won that those states by.
As for MI and FL, Obama blocked revotes in those states - what does that say?
DiamondTiger | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Maybe, martin, but I really don’t know. Blacks in the Democratic Party have pretty much gotten used to being an assumed part of the block of interests that form the party core.
If there is some sort of ginormous turmoil at the convention and Obama doesn’t win the nomination, there’ll be some fuss but I expect that the Clinton folks have already considered that and are ready to co-opt the most vocal in the group to bring them into the fold.
Jimmie | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
The perceived amount of “Stole the election” would be larger than anything we have seen in modern times. Much of it would not even be invalid.
I agree it is more than just the old white women I stated earlier but there would be larger fall out for the dems than just the African-Americans for this election cycle. A large group of Obama’s Elites and anti-war people would also fail to show up for Hillary.
My main point is I think “Stealing” the election from Obama would have more far reaching fallout for the Democratic party that you do. I hope they do it.
Besides I would prefer Hillary as President to Obama anyway. She is a known quantity with known ways to oppose her legislatively. Obama will be much harder to deal with on that front.
Why do I end up arguing with you when I feel like I mostly agree with you? Anyway keep up the good work.
martin | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
I think it’s the nature of blogs sometimes that we all come in to it expecting a certain amount of confrontation. Sometimes that’s not bad.
I don’t mind so much if there’s a lot of blue on blue “stole the election” fallout. I think it would have the effect of showing the general public what a dysfunctional and oftentimes venomous nature lies in the heart of today’s Democratic party. In the end, that would be good for Democrats as well, because it could well mean that more reasonable Democrats would have some firm support for purging the more traditionally progressive elements from among them. That would be a positive development for everyone.
Jimmie | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain
http://www.hcsfjm.com
Alan Srout | Jul 22, 2008 | Reply
Alas, were Hillary to somehow take the nomination in Denver, she’ll only have two months to woo back a significant bloc of disaffected Obama supporters, who are likely to be as moody and intractable as the PUMAs. Worse, it will hand the GOP a golden opportunity to paint the Dems as a party in disarray, panicked, fractious and desperately switching its candidate at the last minute. The public spectacle of shitcanning the much- ballyhooed presumptive candidate who drew swooning crowds, toured the Middle East and met with Europe’s heads of state would become THE story of the general election, and a humiliation for the party that Hillary would have to carry, however bravely, to certain defeat.
Rotwang | Jul 23, 2008 | Reply
THE PUMAS ARE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED …
1. Contrary to what Obamabots say …
Obama and Hillary were in a dead heat,
when the DNC pressured Hillary into not
only conceding, but campaigning for Obama.
2. Obama is once again in a dead heat, but now
with McCain, even though Obamabots act like
Obama has already won (like they did in the
primaries against Hillary). So, this means that
half of the Democrats, and all the Republicans
(3/4 of America) dIdn’t want Obama. Plus, he
didn’t even win the popular vote, and refused a
revote in Michigan and Florida.
3. Obama has the thinnest resume in politics, and
he won state legislature and Senator by
disqualifications of his opponents, not by earned
experience, or votes.
4. Obama’s one claim to fame is being a community
organizer, where he boasts of registering voters.
Then he took their votes away from them, by
disqualifying his opponents on technicalities, prior
to the election.
5. Obama’s mentor of 20 years, was an anti-American
racist … not to mention other unsavory associations.
6. Obama is simply buying the election, since he’s
good at fund raising … hardly a qualification to be
President of the United States.
7. The media never vetted Obama, and they are
giving him a free ride, plus more than twice the
print and air time as McCain, as they did against
Hillary.
8. 90% of blacks are voting for Obama, because he is
black, while the campaign gained ground by
accusing most opponents of racism.
9. Obamabots were, and are extremely nasty and sarcastic
towards Hillary supporters, as well as McCain supporters.
10. Pumas should be applauded for putting country before party …
especially a party that did not represent them, and a party
which highjacked the nomination for Obama.
Gina | Jul 27, 2008 | Reply