PUMA = Party Unity My Ass

BTL referenced this site below and I went there to check it out.

In response to how we as American citizens, as voters in our party, have been treated; in response to how our candidate was treated by our party and our public media; in response to how our institutions have degraded the civic landscape in which we want our children and grandchildren to be allowed to participate — as equal and full-fledged participants in our still precious democracy . . .


We will not support or vote for an illegitimate nominee. We will not be bullied, pandered to, sweet-talked, or manipulated. We will not succumb to appeals to our better natures, to our identities as democrats, as uniters, as healers, or as helpers.


Some of us will stay home. Some of us will vote for a third-party. Some of us will write-in Clinton. Many of us will vote for John McCain. This is a protest. Whatever option our members choose, it does not make us Republicans. Those who vote for John McCain will do so as a strategy, a protest. Those of us who withdraw from the Democratic Party and become Independents are still Democrats in our hearts. We are all Democrats. This is our party. The leaders did us wrong. They did Hillary Clinton wrong. They did our country wrong. But it’s still our party.

We want it back.

If you have forgotten how bad it has been, how immense the attack machine was against Hillary, remind yourself by watching this video.
Mad As Hell

Please help us achieve our goals by contributing today. Puma PAC is an unaffiliated political action committee (PAC) registered with the Federal Election Commission and with the IRS as a 527 organization. We are completely grassroots. All of our funding comes from individuals in small donations. All contributions are used to fund our political activities. They are not tax-deductible. Thank you very much for contributing to Puma PAC.

The most fascinating thing about the democrat nominating “process” has to do with what they did in 2008 and what they said back in 2000. They were all about “counting every vote” in those days. Not any more.

The second most fascinating aspect to this spectacle has to do with the hatred that the grassroots of the party and the media displayed towards Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was as if she was Israeli or something. Just irrational hatred. Many women noticed it. I don’t have a crystal ball and don’t know what they will actually do come November. I’m too conservative to vote for Obama myself, and don’t really get where the Left is coming from. But if they stick to their guns, McCain at least has a chance of winning.

Fingers crossed.

– Aggie


  1. Will Bower said,

    June 8, 2008 @ 4:39 am

    A question was just posed (on the Hillary board) at to the overall purpose of PUMA.

    Wanting to share it with you and open it up for discussion, this is my take:

    I would contend that PUMA — for at least June through November — exists primarly to prevent Barack Obama from winning the White House in 2008.

    After November — given a McCain victory — I would contend that PUMA would strive to reform and rebuild the Democratic Party to be the party that America had *thought* it was voting into power in 2006.

    Or — given an Obama victory — I would contend that PUMA would strive to become a 3rd Party that would draw in Centrists, Moderates, Independents, Conservative Democrats, and Liberal Republicans… with Election Reform at the top of its platform.

  2. Lucia said,

    June 8, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

    Dear Puma,

    I am not supporting Mr. Obama, for personal and ethical issues. I am not changing parties this Monday, because I want to have the pleasure to vote for Gloucester’s lawyer Ed O’Reilly, against Mr. John Kerry.


  3. pumas4change said,

    June 8, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

    There are some of us who are angry, but are willing to listen. I’m just as angry as anyone, but I’ve found during my 56 years that anger never hurts the one you’re angry with as much as it hurts you. Our site started off angry, but now we have a more conciliatory tone, and are asking if there can be a reconciliation between the two sides. We’ve invited the Obama and the McCain camps to join us in discussion of the issues AND the anger, and to try to resolve this before the election. I’m hoping at least some of the PUMAS will at least join the discussion after the first two stages of grief (denial and anger) for our loss pass. If you aren’t ready to join in, at least read. It might make you feel better.

    I never thought I’d feel this way, but after Hillary’s speech, I realized that what she said is right. “Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.”


  4. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 8, 2008 @ 9:38 pm

    I am surprised that we didn’t all sit down and talk and heal after the 2000 election. Or, rather, I’m surprised that the same folks who have raged for 8 years are now willing to overlook the fact that Hillary received more votes but that the superdelegates selected Obama instead.

    In other words, Obama was selected, not elected.

    – Aggie

  5. Phyllis O'Leary said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 10:12 am

    I too am not voting for Barach Obama, and either are my sons and husband
    I feel that Hillary was treated so unfairly by the news media, DNC and members
    of congress. I don’t understand how somebody with so little knowledge, and
    experience can be encouraged to run for president I would like to know who
    is behind Barach Obama and worked hard for him to run. With 2 years experience in the senate and being a civic activist in his community does
    not mean he should be president. Who feels entitled? Certainly Barach does.

  6. Lee said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 4:29 pm

    Obama supporters keep going on with the false impression that everything is Hillary’s fault, and that the saintly Obama never engaged in mud slinging … like nasty Chicago politics, or circumventing Michigan’s and Florida’s popular vote, by refusing a revote … and circumventing democracy by having the DNC only count half votes … furthermore, the truth is that Obama’s supporters have slung tons of mud in Obama’s behalf, with countless blogs insulting Senator Clinton. And now, arrogant condescending Obama supporters who need us Clinton supporters to get their rock star elected, are still posting nasty blogs about Hillary and her supporters. Well, I’m one of millions of HIllary supporters who is going to vote for McCain, and I’m going to try to get as many friends and family members as I can to vote for McCain as well.

  7. Anabel said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

    I rather give my vote to a War Hero, who at least cares for the country than a nobody with a huge ego.

    I will vote for John McCain this November and if I can re-register, I will do so as Independent. The Democratic Party has dissapointed me and I don’t easily forget!!!!

  8. Ben David said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

    I am waiting on the speech by Mr Obama to openly apologize not only to HRC but WJC as well for Obama’s part in allowing his campaign and some in the whoremedia to make both Clinton’s out to be bigot’s and racist’s.
    The only chance Obama had in states were there were a huge African American population was to play the race card and blame HRC. There was no need for the Clinton campaign to inject race into this campaign. I may never hear Obama give this speech, but then again many believe a black candidate could play the race card.

  9. mike said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

    Superdelegates did not decide the vote it was delegates. The rules state whoever has the most delegates at the end of the race would be named nominee. As for the popular vote the only way she wins popular is if you give her the votes in michigan and negate the 40 percent that voted other. If michigan followed there scheduled time odds are barrack wins that state it has a large african american population and a large college base both of which barrack obama does extremely well with. The reason they go by delegates is because of situations like operation choas were members of oppossing parties vote for a canidate to bring disruption among the party. Anyone who is a true democrat is not boing to vote for John Mccain because a true democrat knows that this country cant survive another 4 years of what we had for the past 8. I assume most on here are republicans trying to swift boat the election again. But if you are a democrat and are voting for John Mccain cause your mad your canidate didnt win then I hope as you watch more and more soldiers die in a usless war and oil companies continue to screw the average american with high gas prices and we watch the divide between the rich and the poor grow increasingly farther apart. Go be a selfish whinner and as the country falls apart you can pat yourself on the back and say hey i made my point.

  10. Darryl Sargent said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

    I respect the issues people have brought up in regards to Clinton and the democratic party. What I do not understand is why such proud and strong democrats would vote for someone who shares none of the views that makes them democrats in the first place. protesting by voting for another republican doesn’t make the democrats change it makes them lose. why not instead after the election move to reform the process that the democrats use as their candidate selection process.

  11. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

    What do we “win” if we have a party that disrespects women, doesn’t count votes, etc.? McCain is a very liberal Republican, a war hero, and a known quantity. Obama is a Rorschach test. He is whatever you want him to be. I couldn’t vote for him under any circumstance.

    – Aggie

  12. mike said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

    Bloodthirsty Liberal your a republican.

  13. mike said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 5:38 pm

    John Mccains platform.. more war. lower taxes for rich. destroy the envoirment. Take away a womens choice. yeah he does share alkot of democratic views. Go back to freerepublic.com and post your messages on your republican boards

  14. CS said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 5:43 pm

    Obama doesn’t care about Hillary supporters –


    [quote]Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting.[/quote]

    Read that again – the great uniter is telling Hillary supporters to go f*** themselves – he’s not doing anything to bring them back into the fold, instead, he expects them to come crawling to him.

    As for who’s supporting and pushing for Obama, that’s easy – George Soros – otherwise MoveOn.org wouldn’t have been pushing so hard for Obama.

  15. Northwest said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 6:43 pm

    PUMA is blundering self-willed ignorance masquerading as morally righteous indignation. Those who get angry at something as fairly fought and won as the Obama candidacy are speaking and acting illogically, by definition. The idea that a single Hillary supporter would be better served by John McCain and not by Obama is absurd.

  16. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 9, 2008 @ 6:50 pm

    Judging strictly by political affinity, Northwest, you’re right. Obama supporters and Clinton supporters are all Democrats. Yet indignant is exactly how roughly half the Democratic Party feels. I always suspected half of all Democrats suffered from–as you so brilliantly put it–blundering self-willed ignorance, but I didn’t dare say so. At least not while I was one myself. Now I’m happy to endorse your incisive analysis. Well done!


  17. Roxtar said,

    June 10, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

    I really really really hope you guys get Mccain elected… And then suffer the repercussions, nothing would make me happier to see you wallow in your own creation.

  18. Anabel said,

    June 10, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

    I am a Florida resident who suffered through the 2000 Election Fiasco and once again, got ripped off by Florida’s Republican Legislators, but I will move on to 2012.The fact is that no candidate will be able to accomplish much in 4 years; thanks to Bush and this Democratic Congress. Hello… this is NOT about the Parties….it’s very personal. Perhaps people will realize that Hillary was the One!

  19. One Hot Cougar said,

    June 10, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

    Is this where I sign up to be a Cougar? Meow!

  20. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 10, 2008 @ 5:42 pm

    This is where you go to sign up:


    – Aggie

  21. Anonymous said,

    June 11, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

    It is really sad to see the comments posted on this website. It is unbelievable to me that someone who claims to be a true democrat will vote the opposite party after what we have been through in the past eight years. Me and my family just lost our home, my husband lost his job, and we can barely afford to drive because the gas is so high. I get so frustrated at the fact that the Hillary voters are thinking so irrationally. And I guess that Mcsame is going to make things better right? I have listened to and read some of the reasons that you people will not vote for Senator Obama, and the reasons are ridiculous. To say that you are not voting for him for personal reasons, is really saying that you won’t vote for him because he is black, just face it. You don’t know him to say it is personal. and it sounds like you are not trying. It is a sad day to know that people who call themselves a real democrat would rather have a republican in office, that will try to sway HRC’s voters just to get them to vote for him, but when and if he gets in office will forget about you like he forgets the many different policies he has voted against, even some concerning women. Read up on and be smart. I am a 40 yr old white woman and am not in the least upset about HRC not winning. She does not speak for this woman, and as far a historical is concerned, Senator Obama’s nomination is just as historic.

    be blessed and I hope everything goes well for all, even if you want to continue to destry yours and others lives with 4 more years of republicans.

    A Faithful & True democrat

  22. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 11, 2008 @ 2:49 pm


    I am truly sorry for the economic hardship that your family are enduring. I just don’t see Obama as the solution.

    Obama is really just Jimmy Carter all over again. I’m a bit older than you, and I’d like to review what America experienced in the Carter years. Unemployment on the east coast was about 11%, in the midwest it was over 7%. (Today we have 5.5%, just to give a sense of proportion.) In those years, in addition to high unemployment, we had very, very high inflation. Interest rates on home loans were well over 10%. The term was “stagflation”, a combination of out of the world inflation and stagnating employment. We also had gas lines over usually about 30-45 minutes per fill up. And, on a cost adjusted basis, the gas was more expensive then than it is today. Not in real dollars, but in dollars compared to income. Jimmy Carter was responsible to Islamic terrorism as we know it today, because when the Iranians took our people hostage in our embassy, he retreated to the Rose Garden for 444 days. And from this they got the idea that the US is weak and can’t get its act together. It isn’t just September 11th; it is every single terror attack since then including the ones that happened in the Clinton era. Carter set the tone.

    Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator in the entire Senate. He is also the most inexperienced. He comes with a lot of baggage that makes me and others question his judgement – Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers… And there is no track record there to judge him by. Just a handsome face and a golden tongue.

    John McCain is a liberal Republican, one who almost changed parties in 2001. He isn’t George Bush. Unlike Obama, he is experienced and we know where he stands. I prefer to take my chances with him, rather than on Obama.

    Aside from all of that, the issue of how Hillary Clinton was treated, the rank misogyny, is not going to go away. The process was undemocratic and very ugly.

    All of that adds up to my unwillingness to vote for Obama under any circumstances.

    – Aggie

  23. Ted Offensive said,

    June 11, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

    I’m voting republican!


  24. Powerful_Mind said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 1:14 am

    Barack wasn’t elected? LOL
    Americans has got to be the most ignorant people on the planet. This is nothing but a Republican ploy to fracture the party.

    Barack will be your next President and there will be nothing you can do about it!!!

  25. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 6:49 am

    You may be right but he was selected, not elected. Hillary got more primary votes. Based on the assertions of the democrats in 2000, that we should throw away the electoral system, one would think that they would do the same. Guess not.

    – Aggie

  26. OIFEF Vet said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

    I can’t believe that in your blinding anger at the perceived injustice you all felt Hillary Clinton endured during the primary season, you would seriously consider voting for John McCain as a sign of protest. It seems that many of you are too concerned with bringing up talking points to battle Obama supporters with to see how devastating a John McCain administration would be. He’s clearly become the politican he swore he would never be and his terms would simply be Bush III. So because you are all upset and hurt over Hillary and would be patting yourselves on the back in November if you indeed had a hand in swaying the lection towards McCain, people like myself and my comrades would pay thr price with continued involvement in Iraq and not the country who attacked us. So if you Mr. Will Bower are willing to enlist in the armed forces with me and face the consequences of a John McCain administration while in Tikrit ir Baghdad, then your argument will have some meanin got me. If not, then I would hope you would all get over this and make sure a Democrat gets in office this November.

  27. Mitch said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

    Instead of PUMA lets call it Cut off Your Nose to Spite Your Faced. PUMA is a place for McCainites to attempt to spilt Dems. So we should vote for McCain because you are upset that Clinton lost. Yes lets vote for a man who will leave more soldiers to die in Iraq and not care for them if they get home because your mad. Yes lets vote for a man who will make paper hats out of Roe v. Wade because your mad. Yes lets vote for a man who believes that Bush economics work and will extend and add more tax cuts for the wealthy because you are mad. Lets vote for more people who will subvert the enviroment and kow-tow to Oil. Hillary Clinton rejected that notion and I would hope that her followers would reject it as well. This election is too important with too many lives and livelihoods at stake to chose based upon PUMA silliness. My thought is that the founder of PUMA never planned to vote for Hillary or Obama.

  28. Mitch said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 5:07 pm

    John McCain is Not a liberal by any stretch of the word.

    What the heck does Jimmy carter have to do with Barack Obama. I am more worried someone who will emulate GW Bush. Carter never mislead the country into war. Carter never allowed a city to go into anarchy and dispair like GWB and New Orleans. You are worried about having another Carter. I am more worried about have four years of John McBush

  29. Liberal mcDemocrat said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

    Well, I for one, am glad that you right wing democrats are going to do us all a favor and purge yourselves from the party. I’ve been sick and tired of all the “republican light” choices that the democratic party has served up for us for the past 20 years — including Bill Clinton who gave us “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the defense of marriage act, along with welfare reform at the same time Exxon was getting a handout… I haven’t been very happy about the choices on the democratic slate for a long time, and I finally feel like I *my* democratic party is back. Perhaps the Obama/Clinton feud is really a fight for the heart of the democratic party. I hope y’all “Reagan Democrats” do leave — and don’t come back. It’s time we had a progressive choice for a change.

  30. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 5:36 pm


    He wasn’t elected, he was selected. She didn’t lose. It was taken from her. We are not “silly”, we are just as bright and competent as you presumably are. But, we are women, for the most part, and it is easy for angry misogynists to start throwing around words like “silly”.

    And here’s what Obama has to do with Carter… again. He is campaigning on the same platform. “Change” That is the platform. We don’t get to know exactly what “change” means. Carter brought us “stagflation” and Islamic terrorism. He was the worst President of the modern era. Apparently every generation needs to learn this stuff. You are probably too young to recall 12% mortgages or routine unemployment over 10%. This was the pre-AIDS era, and I knew people who sold their blood once a week for $5.00 – not for booze, for food. Young, healthy people could not find work of any kind. Reagan won because of the Misery Index. The misery index is unemployment plus inflation. It stands today at 8.94% http://www.miseryindex.us/ During the Carter era it was a whooping 13.5% nationally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics) And much, much higher in the northeast.

    I dread an Obama Presidency. We’ll all live through it, but young people especially will really suffer the economic consequences.

    – Aggie

  31. frozenc said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

    Obama was selected by the same means that Bill Clinton was. Bill shaped the media opinion around himself – Anyone remember ‘The Comeback Kid?’ He created that story.

    Oh, and stop your ignorant re-writing of history about Michigan. Most of the candidated took their names off the ballot in Michigan, with the exception of Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, and Clinton. Dennis meant to take his name off, but the campaign didn’t get the paperwork in on time. Hillary said she would take it off, but didn’t. She said the Michigan Primary wouldn’t count for anything. (They also tried to get their name off in FLorida too, but the rules in FL wouldn’t allow it). 35% of the people in the exit poll who voted uncommited said they wanted to vote for Obama. Plus there were people who didn’t realize that write-in votes for Obama were not counted. If you count the exit polling info, plus the tainted HIllary vote in MI AND the tainted FL Hillary and Barack vote, he STILL HOLDS THE LEAD IN POPULAR VOTE (which is NOT how we select a democratic nominee. Thanks for paying attention).

    Quit your whining. God, you all sound like a bunch of children. Take a nap.

  32. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

    Notice PUMAs… when the misogynists get angry, uppity women are “whining” and “children” who need a nap. Not adults. Not thoughtful human beings.

    Someday maybe they will understand that people have a right to disagree. Even women have that right.

    – Aggie

  33. frozenc said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 7:52 pm

    Hahahah – yes I am a misogynist – what a freaking joke. You don’t get your way because your candidate ran a horrible campaign, you whine like an idiot, and suddenly I’m a misogynist. What a freak.

    I notice you attacked the messenger, but didn’t respond to the message. Like a juvenile immature brat.

    You PUMA-assed campaign includes men, you freaking moron. I’m insulting all of you alike, not just women. And women are now moving to support Obama partly because his wife (a woman) is being insulted by the right. Where is your defense of her? You must be a misogynist.

    -Oh, by the way your hero, McCain, dropped his disabled wife for a younger woman, whom he called a trollop and a c**t. There’s your fucking misogynist.

  34. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 9:40 pm

    Frozenc: A Typical Obama Supporter.

    – Aggie

  35. frozenc said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 10:07 pm

    Hahahahaha – Again, attacking the messenger, not confronting the message. You’re a joke.

  36. Javy said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 11:22 pm

    Obama used the race card- to portray Hillary and Bill and racist. How dirty is that? He attacked Hillary all year, then when she questioned his work in the senate, etc he yelled “it’s because Im black”…

    He used the race issue so that the leaders in the democratic party had to be forced to back him up or they would have been labeled as racist too.

    I’ve been democrat my whole life except this year. My family and friends will not vote for Obama.

  37. Houston said,

    June 13, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

    I will fight for Hillary to be drafed. I will nevr vote for Obama. If necessary I will vote for McCain….The reason…character….quite simple…I don’t care that he’s black…As a Democrat I would vote for Colan Powell in a heart beat…..Are you aware Obama has Nation of Islam in his Senior Staff? Let me tell you from expeirence. In NY they often preach right outside of Macy’s dept Store. As a white person you are not allowed to stop and listen to them…If you do…they threaten you…seriously…great big guys…and I’m 5’4″….The older men will maybe nicely ask you to move….Some of them have called me horrible names because I was listening to them. He has them on his staff. They are racists. He’s a criminal. He is supported by the most radical black liberation organizations….That’s what his church was about. You have to be nuts to vote for Obama…totally naive and nuts…..I would rather have Bush another four years to tell you the truth….We already know he’s a moron…..Obama is bad….really bad…He is such a liar that you can’t even tell….but relisten to the things he’s said..Being Lefty liberal is one thing…being a radical leftist is another….Ever wonder why every Communist regime is supporting him? Because that’s what radical left is……And as someone who grew up on the lower East Side of the streets of NY in a low income family, I do know “bad”. Wake up America before you find yourself in way over your pretty little nice “white” heads.

  38. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 14, 2008 @ 7:17 am

    You all seem to be doing just fine by yourselves, but as the co-host of this little shindig, I have observed that there is a lot of self-loathing among Democrats—and I don’t mean just the candidates! Whiny brats, racists, misogynists—talk about your big tents. No wonder Robert Byrd and James Moran are still members in good standing.

    I quit being a Democrat about six years ago, but as with many addictions, I knew I had a problem long before then. I won’t try to convince any of you to do the same, but is this sort of language and behavior what attracted you to the party to begin with? Or has something (or someone) changed?


  39. Mitch said,

    June 14, 2008 @ 10:51 am





  40. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 14, 2008 @ 11:20 am


    Do capital letters mean you’re screaming?

    – Aggie

  41. Ben said,

    June 14, 2008 @ 12:40 pm

    I am a democrat that will vote for McCain, but not vote for Republican (I’ll cast my votes to all Dem candidates for Congress). The issues here are not about selecting a white man, a back, or a woman. When I vote, I vote for the candidate who I can trust, who is ready to lead, who is qualified, who has the long records to check. I don’t approve many of McCain’s policies, but I know the worst might be if he is elected. The WH job is not for a summer intern, who says “I never did anything wrong”, but also never did anything right yet. You can vote for Obama for a chanCe, not for changes, just like you put all your money in a lottery. You might win big, or lose all. If you like to play lottery, go ahead. For me, I’d put half of $2000 in McCain’s campain, and the remaining in a 4-year CD.

    For the Dem super delegates, they need to look at the facts: how many states that Obama won in the primary, such as AL, MS, SC, GA, LA, etc, can he win the November?

  42. primrose said,

    June 14, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

    women of america stand up and protest. speak to any of the superdelegates and persuade them Hillary is the better cndidate. go to the convention and speak up and vote for Hillary and deject obama. we still have time! We have been insulted,and put into second place long enough.stand up for the women.as Napoleon’s wife said “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” thats a women. weare in a messand need a women to get us out.WHAT DO OU SAY MEN AND WOMEN HILLARY SUPPORTERS. IN BY GONE DAYSIF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY THEY VOTED FOR THE CANDIDATE AT THE CONVENTION. why are letting a few primaries change this. there is still time what do you say. we can still put Hillary in as the candidate!

  43. Denise said,

    June 15, 2008 @ 8:46 am


  44. Mitch said,

    June 15, 2008 @ 10:57 am

    No my caps mean I am responding to an idiot

  45. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 15, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

    And the fact that you treat me, and millions of other women who actually disagree with you, like we are idiots, is the problem. People have the right to disagree – even women. You demonstrate why so many women are just not lining up behind Obama. I don’t want to make it personal, so I won’t say: Look in the mirror. I’ll just say that attitudes like those you’ve demonstrated will not help Mr. Obama to get elected.

    – Aggie

  46. Rob said,

    June 15, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

    Thank you for reducing feminism to stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum when you don’t get your way. You’re movement is going backwards and I’m loving it.

  47. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 15, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

    Again, look at your metaphors. Women are children. Women are idiots. That kind of stuff is called misogyny. It is bigotry. Some women will choose to vote for Obama, others will not. I will not for many reasons, his diehard followers not the least of them.

    – Aggie

  48. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 15, 2008 @ 3:34 pm

    I’m enjoying this immensely, so I should probably just keep quiet and let things continue as they are.


    Do you guys have any idea of the spanking you’re getting from Aggie? I mean, as long as we’re using tired, sexist cliches, she’s tanning your hide with a hairbrush.

    It’s okay if you like that sort of thing (it’s a really big tent under the Democratic Big Top), but if you’re not saying “Thank you ma’am, may I have another?” I don’t know why you keep coming back for more.



  49. Mitch said,

    June 15, 2008 @ 11:54 pm

    No, about as many women as men are idiots Aggie. Your just an idiot not an oppressed woman

  50. Mitch said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 12:08 am

    You it is really not about women/men. It is about electing John McBush who is against universal healthcare, pro war, for continuing the Bush economic policy that has left the USA in the worst shape in decades, he supported Bush’s misrepresentation of and entry into the Iraq War. John McBush thinks Roer v Wade is a mistake Yes John McBush is an experienced conservative Republican who does embrace the campaign ideals of Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama does. The primary election was lost by Hillary Clinton. It was not taken from her. She trailed in states won, pledged delegate gained and by any reasonable metric the popular vote. I voted for Obama but had no problem with Clinton would have easily supported her had she won. She is polarizing and would have represented a Presidency that was as polarized as Bush’s. However, I share her ideals and would have supported her and will support her again in the future if she were nominated. I encourage you to join Hillary Clinton and myself in rejecting this divisive PUMA nonsense and fully support Barack Obama. Someone who shares our Democratic ideals.

  51. Hil man said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 6:06 am

    The name calling and insults on this blog certainly do not represent a healthy attitude toward actual discourse.

    Of course, none of us really want another Republican nominating judges and controlling the economy or even running the war on terror. Unfortunately, we also do not know what the presumed nominee of the Democratic party will do. When you do a head-to-head comparison of McCain and Obama, it is hard not to notice that McCain talks to the right but acts more to the left. Obama and his minions tend so far to the left that it is diffuclt to how they are difficult from the ideological hate we often here from the worst of the far right.

    The lack on conciliatory gestures from the Obama camp for the Clinton camp leaves little doubt that Clinton supporters are being taken-for-granted or maligned for failing to fall in line as commanded. Attacking those that you want to join you has not worked for the left-wing of Democratic party in any of the elections over the last two or even three decades. The only time the Democratic candidate wins is when he or she reaches out to the moderate wing of the party as the election nears. Fail to reach out to us and watch what happens! Keep calling us idiots and

  52. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 6:47 am

    Hil Man,

    I agree with you. McCain is a very liberal Republican, and that is why he actually has problems with his base.

    Obama represents the far left wing of the Democrat’s base. And they are not a very nice bunch, if the past few years are any indication. I can’t see how Obama brings us together at all. The conversation on this board has proven the point.

    As for Mitch.. are there two separate Mitch’s out there? That is possible. We have the guy who calls us Idiot and Child, and then the person, directly above you, who re-directs his anger towards Bush and paints McCain with the same brush.

    We will have a Democratic Congress and Senate. I feel comfortable voting for McCain.

    – Aggie

  53. Mitch said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 11:29 am

    John McBush is a liberal? You don’t seem very knowledgable about issues. Both Hillary Clinton and Obama support very similar programs. As Mrs Clinton said, “The differences between Barack Obama and myself pale in comparison with John McCain (McBush)”. You don’t seem to support the issues that Hillary ran on. You don’t seem to respect her call to support the Democratic Party. If you think that John McBush acts to the left and talks to the right, you need to check his voting record. He voted 95% of the time with his party’s leader George Bush.

    The lack of conciliatory gestures? Are you kidding. Obama has spoken glowingly of her. He went out of his way to meet with her.

  54. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 11:48 am

    McCain is a liberal Republican. He has very different positions from the Bush administration on a number of issues, which is why the Republican base has been very uncomfortable with him. Just his immigration policy alone speaks volumes. Also, he truly does have a long history of working with democrats, including Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. He will create an atmosphere of working together and compromise. I don’t see Obama being able to do that. In fact, I read our conversation as a sample of what an Obama administration would be like nationally – people screaming “Idiot!!” at one another.

    I simply disagree with you. I feel that Obama is too inexperienced to be President of the United States. I also believe that his choice in mentors has been disturbing. Jeremiah Wright was his spiritual mentor; the Audacity of Hope comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Obama assured us that his church was not outside the mainstream, “not particularly controversial”, I think was his language. That was either a lie or he has a very different idea of controversial than I do. He isn’t ready for the job yet, in my opinion.

    I realize that you disagree with me, and that is fine. The problem is the tone and language used to convey disagreement. Very few people will be persuaded by someone telling them that they are an “idiot”. The messenger is the message.

    – Aggoe

  55. Mitch said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

    I know liberals, liberals are friends of mine. Aggie you are no liberal, You don’t like idiot the how about fucking idiot. You are a fucking idiot aggie who whose politics centers around what is between her legs. Everything else is simply after the fact justifications for that. I am done with your pathetic site

  56. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 4:54 pm

    Again, folks, this is the mind of the … dare I say… Typical Obama Supporter.

    We are accused of whining and crying when we don’t get our way. Mitch has tried cajoling and he’s tried humiliating and ranting. Now the Power Whine. None of this will work, at least not with me.

    Obama might win, who knows? But his minions are not helping the cause.

    – Aggie

  57. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 5:40 pm

    BTW, Aggie, Our friend Mitch has been reduced to sending us Obama commercials and repeat comments that are word-for-word the same thing he sent three days ago.

    I have deleted them, but if Mitch has anything else he cares to share—his own words, and something new each time—we’d be happy to post them.

    I know that’s a tall order, Mitch, but I believe if you apply yourself, Yes You Can.

  58. Mitch said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

    Ahhh typical female spoiled brat syndrome at work here. “Waaahh wahhh i’m a princess, I didnt get my way…. Wahhh wahhh” Thank god we dont have a woman for president seeing how self destructive they can be.

  59. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 16, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

    Jeez, Mitch, I just hope you’re not bitterly clinging to your guns.

    You are a one-man McCain commercial.

    – Aggie

  60. Chris said,

    June 17, 2008 @ 3:12 pm

    You know what’s funny about crazies? They don’t know they’re crazy. I never thought I’d see the day where a bunch of Democrats would be fear mongering and spitting in the face of reality Republican style. May God have mercy on this nation if we elect McCain. And for the record I’m a HRC supprter to the end, thus I support the candidate SHE SUPPORTS, DURRRRR. I’m not going to destroy for 8 years everything Hill had hoped for just to spite a political party that only did about half the crazy crap you nutjobs claim.

  61. Jay said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 2:17 am

    I will try and not fall prey to the shortcomings of my fellow Obama supporters and try and limit myself to one very specific point. By no stretch of the imagination is it a sure thing that Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, as PUMA-ites so often claim. At the most, her and Obama were tied. The only way she can claim she won the popular vote is if she gets ALL the votes from FL and MI AND Obama gets none of even the uncommitted voters, most of whom were undoubtebly his supporters. On top of that, how can you say that those primaries were even real contests when voters knew going in that they didn’t count? I agree, the DNC should have just authorized a re-vote in both states. Only then would we truly have known the outcome. One more point, which I have never heard any Clinton supporter address. Last year, after the DNC handed down its punishment to FL and MI, both Bill and Hilary Clinton applauded the decision. It wasn’t until much later, when it appeared that she was going to lose, that they started to complain. Is that not the epitome of hypocrisy?

  62. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 6:27 am


    It is such a relief to talk to a reasonable Obama supporter and your points are well taken. I got my numbers from the real clear politics site, because most people seem to feel that they do a fair job analyzing different outcomes. I think that she did win the popular vote, but can understand counter-arguments. I also think that for a party that was absolutely furious with the outcome of the 2000 election, we should be counting votes.

    What is more important to me is the fact that Clinton was able to win in places that democrats need to win – and Obama was creamed in a lot of those places.

    What is even more important to me is that I don’t think he has the experience to take on the Presidency. That bothers me the most. I lived through the Carter era and it wasn’t pretty. Aside from an economy that was far, far worse than anything we’ve seen in the Bush years, Carter’s policies towards Iran led directly to Islamic radicalism as we’ve come to know it. Obama is walking down that same path, in a confused, back-and-forth sort of way. He will talk to Iran without pre-conditions. No he won’t. Hi might. Or maybe a combination of both. He is in over his head.

    Then there’s the matter of his friends… or former friends. Reverend Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc. Wright’s ties to Louis Farrakhan just make my skin crawl. Twenty years is a long time not to notice that kind of thing. And each time that one of these people is exposed by the media, he says: That wasn’t the (Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko…) that I knew. It could maybe work once, but not again and again.

    So, I can’t vote for him. But I understand your position.

    – Aggie

  63. Jay said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 9:23 am

    All fair points, and I think that some of his choices of associates have been questionable at best, and I’m not sure how (or if) they can be defended. aHowever, I must dispute your contentions that Carter’s treatment of Iran led to the rise of modern Islamic fundamentalism as way too simplisitic. Agreed, Jimmy Carter’s handling of the hostage situation was deplorable, not only from a foreign policy standpoint but because of its key role in pushing they country rightward into the the Reagan-Bush years. However, I don’t think that you can ignore American financial and strategic support of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden during the those Reagan-Bush years. Nor do I think you can blame the anger over the Palestinian issue on the Carter presidency. Furthermore, I think that it is really disingenuous to say that because there are similarities in background between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama that their respective administrations. The last two presidents were both young Governors of southern states with no experience on the national level with degrees from Yale, yet I don’t think anyone would dare compare their respective terms in office.

  64. Chris said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

    Forgive my earlier comments. Normally the discussion in blogs is so subpar that I tend to just say “to hell with it” and play an inciting devil’s advocate out of boredom and a slight streak of meaness. The moderator and commenters here however clearly exceed my previous ignorant assumptions. That said I don’t particularily like HRC. I’m a big Obama fan and have been since I elected him my senator. I’d like to see more of what you and Jay have to say about the matter, but needed to apologize for my previous demeanor that was neither justified nor helpful. I will however stand by my previous assertion that for the most part supporting HRC and voting for McCain is nuts, unless you were voting for her PURELY because she’s a woman (Which is your right, but politically vexing). Voting for McCain is reasonable. Voting for Obama is reasonable. Hell, votign for Barr is resonable in its own right. Voting for a candidate so admantly opposed to views you supposedly have out of vengeance for a perceived slight is just mind boggling.

  65. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 12:12 pm

    The reason that I blame the Carter administration for Islamic terrorism is this: We changed our policy radically and retreated in the face of the takeover of the embassy in Iran. We appeased the terrorists in that situation. In WWII, Neville Chamberlain, who I am sure was a decent man, thought that appeasement would work. As a result, the world watched the Third Reich gain territory and gain strength, expand the military and take over entire countries. Depending on whom you believe, between 40 million and 60 million human beings died in WWII. The alternative would not have been no deaths; it would have been a smaller war against a weaker Germany with fewer deaths. No concentration camps and probably no atom bombs on Japan. It is an imperfect world and sometimes the choices are not all that great, but it is the world we have. Today we hear about Viet Nam, Viet Nam, Viet Nam, probably because that is in the memory of the baby boomers, but WWII is a situation worth studying and considering as an alternate template. Nothing approaches exactly today, of course, Obama is not exactly Carter, but in my mind he is much more Carter than he is Kennedy. Kennedy was young, true, but he was a foreign policy hawk.

    Jimmy Carter practices appeasement to this day. And if it worked, if it brought actual peace or a lessening of violence at least, I might get behind it. But it leads to bloodshed because very aggressive leaders perceive the olive branch as a sign of weakness.

    Obama reminds me of Carter because his foreign policy statements overall repeat this tragic mistake. But there are other ways in which he reminds me of Carter. President Carter, when faced with gas lines, put on a sweater and told everyone to turn down their thermostat. That is fine, as far as it goes. Similarly, Obama is refusing to even consider doing anything that will yield more oil; instead he is telling people to pull back on usage. I personally live a pretty “green” life and understand that point. But if you look at the total economy, if everyone pulls back, we have a recession, a very deep recession. Sometimes they happen anyway, but his policies would make it worse.

    Reagan beat Carter on an optimistic message (Morning in America) and a Misery Index (Inflation + Unemployment). I hear the same doom and gloom from the Obama crowd and I believe that it will yield similar results. People simply do not remember those years (heck, half the voters today may not have even been born!) And I sometimes think that maybe we need to find out for ourselves what it was like, that is that each generation somehow has to experience this in order to be convinced.

    – Aggie

  66. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 12:18 pm

    Apology accepted, Chris, as in the “Finally!!!” thread. Hope you hang around, though you might not find our editorial stance to your liking

    But if Obama is the post-racial candidate, appealing to some Republicans and Independents, why can’t McCain appeal to Democrats? He sure as hell does not appeal to all Republicans. Some women are voting for him out of pure spite (that’s what they say, not me), but I believe some are genuinely more comfortable with McCain over Obama. Some of Hillary’s supporters felt hard done by on behalf of their candidate. I think they have a point, though I felt the media and the party elders were more guilty than Obama himself.

    Oh, and his supporters, too: at least many of those who have commented here. A bigger pack of a-holes (collectively speaking) you could not find with a compass and a Geiger counter. I would suggest punching in the nose anyone you meet named Mitch. You’re bound to get the right one sooner or later, and he so deserves it.

  67. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 1:06 pm

    Hi Chris,

    I am so happy to receive your note. I sometimes – often – despair about the tone that our country had adopted. I wonder if we baby boomers did something wrong raising our kids… how else to explain it?

    As for Clinton, Obama and the Democrats – I am either a very liberal Republican or a very conservative Democrat. I voted for the democrats all my life, but I just can’t go along with Obama, for the reasons I outlined above. The poor treatment of Hillary Clinton at the hands of the media and many Obama supporters turned me off, that’s for sure, but even if she had been respectfully treated, I still couldn’t have voted for Obama. I am not comfortable with what I think is his foreign policy or his domestic policy. His policies are hard to divine and I may not be reading him right, but when you take those into context with the Wright/Pfleger etc. wing of his base, I just get too uncomfortable to go there.

    I think that the Democratic Party needs centrists or more conservative leaning people like myself. I didn’t start out this way, incidentally, the experience of life sort of brought me here. If we don’t have a comfortable place at the table, we will naturally have to go elsewhere. And McCain makes it very easy, because, despite the fact that I disagree with some of his views, he is a very liberal Republican and, furthermore, will probably only serve one term if elected.

    – Aggie

  68. Chris said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

    I tried to submit a comment earlier, but it didn’t show. Too long perhaps? Key parts: Aggie you have such a better developed view of the HRC BO JM triangle than many former HRC supporters to. Very respactable and reasonable.

    BTL, disucussing politics with those who agree with you is boring. Its a great blog you’ve got here and I think I’ll stick around for at least a litte bit.

  69. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 6:49 pm


    I’m slow on the uptake sometimes – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, but who is JM?

    We’re enjoying you too, Chris and hope you do stick around. We can all learn from each other (corny as it sounds, it is true). And I’m open-minded about this stuff.

    Re: comment earlier – I don’t think we received it.

    – Aggie

  70. A Concerned Democrat said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 8:18 pm

    After reading some of these comments, I’ve become convinced that this whole PUMA thing really *is* a Republican trick to divide the Democratic Party further than it already is. Why would a liberal vote for a President (McCain) who would keep the same belligerent foreign policy as the Bush administration? And, most important of all, how could a liberal vote for a President who will place anti-Roe v. Wade judges on the Supreme Court? Those two issues alone are enough, I would think, to turn any Clinton supporter into, if not an Obama supporter, then into a non-voter. If staunch Clinton Democrats want to abstain from voting then I’m absolutely in support of that. If they’d like to vote for a third party candidate like Nader or another progressive, I’d support that too. But voting for a Republican that has *stated* that the war in Iraq will continue under him as well as vowing to select conservative justices? I just don’t see how someone could have that much hate in them. Please, please, please, if you will not vote for Obama then vote third-party or not at all. McCain, while almost certainly being a better President than George W. Bush, will act *against your interests*. I may post more on this blog later, if you wish to debate. I do hope you choose to post this and, if you do not, my suspicions about PUMA’s true origin will be confirmed.

    All the best.

  71. Chris said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 8:55 pm

    Yea, i posted in another spot that I’ve probably lost 5 or 6 long comments for whatever reason, but I’ll be more diligent form now on. I just don’t have the strength to rewrite them all. JM=John McCain.

    And yes, while, as you’ve noted elsewhere, we aren’t likely to change each others minds, purposeful and respectful debate and discussion helps us all to better understand not only the views of others, but our own. I’m tired of 8 years of nothing but yelling at each other and calling each other liars. It just doesn’t improve anything except job security for Olberman and O’Reily.

  72. Jennie said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

    I am not as politically savvy as the other HRC supporters here. When the primary started, I didn’t care who won.

    But that changed when I noticed the media bashing Hillary. I don’t listen to much mainstream media. Just the “Daily show” , “colbert”, and the occasional look at CNN. I do listen to NPR very frequently, and read all the weekly magazines like Newsweek.

    All of a sudden, everywhere I looked or listened I heard the media telling, demanding, yelling that Hillary drop out of the race. So I looked up the numbers on the race, and couldn’t figure out why they were insisting. She was neck to neck with Obama. Sometimes she was ahead.

    I don’t understand why delegates backed Obama when they could have just as easily backed Hillary. Can someone answer this? Because, as far as I am concerned, that is the reason a lot of people won’t vote for Barack in November.

    I know a lot of people who didn’t like what they saw being done to Hillary. Republicans and democrats. They will not vote for Obama because of it. You can count the numbers about 6 different ways, and never come up with a reason that the democratic party and media should be telling Hillary to quit and shutting her out. Obama was treated with obvious respect, and Hillary was not. In my experience, it means he is crooked.

    After Hillary conceded, one of the NPR pundits said how he handled the HRC supporters was a test of his ability to lead. He has done nothing to lead them back to unity. He should have been standing beside Hillary when she conceded, but he was golfing. He should have been telling her supporters that he planned to have her head the health care issue, but he hasn’t. He is acting like Bush, and ignoring those who do not agree.

    That is the issue.

  73. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 10:17 pm


    Funny thing about JM. I realized about two hours later that it had to be McCain but was nowhere near a computer. That just shows how intense the Clinton/Obama wars have become. It never crossed my mind to put him in the mix, but of course, you’re right, he’s a big part of it.

    I agree with you about the shouting. I am so sick of it. I want to go back to the days when we could talk about politics without hating each other over it.

    Also, I have noticed some other comments getting cut short. If you have a lot to say, just put it in two posts. Say “end of part 1″ or something at the end and we’ll all understand to keep reading. I’m interested in your comments and don’t want you to over-edit yourself.

    – Aggie

  74. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 10:28 pm


    I share your frustration with the way she was treated.

    I don’t know why he was crowned the victor early by the media, or why she was not so gently encouraged to leave, but there are some obvious possibilities. 1. He is more liberal than she is, in fact he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Many journalists and many grassroots democrats identify with that wing of the party. Call it the Moveon.org wing. They came out for Obama early and often. 2. There is a certain romance with the idea of electing the first African American President. 3. He is young and handsome. 4. He has a lot of youth support and aside from the positive draw that he has, Clinton has the negative appeal of being roughly the age of their mothers. 5. He is apparently charismatic. I can’t feel it, but it has to be there. Why else all the Messiah imagery?

    The flip side of the coin goes like this: too liberal, and the youth and charisma mask a lack of real world experience. They also make it very difficult to read him. Did he really not know who Reverend Wright is? Does he really believe that his grandmother is a Typical White Person? What is a typical white person, exactly, and does it come in a matched set with a typical black person? I don’t think so.

    – Aggie

  75. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 10:35 pm

    Concerned Democrat,

    I want to make sure you know that we are not a PUMA blog. I just think that they are interesting and agree with a lot of what they have to say. We’re not a Republican blog or a Democrat blog. We’re just sort of looking at the world and commenting.

    Also, from what I can tell, PUMA is not a Republican blog. There is no way to overestimate how upsetting the primary process was to supporters of Senator Clinton. I’ve decided to vote for McCain (so far), but that doesn’t mean that everyone who reads the PUMA blog will end up making that choice.

    – Aggie

  76. A Concerned Democrat said,

    June 18, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

    My mistake then, I had been Googling PUMA after hearing about it today and assumed that I found this site through a link on another PUMA site. Sorry for the confusion there.

    I must ask, though: Do you support the foreign policy of the Bush administration? And are you pro-choice? If yes to the former and no to the latter question, then I suppose there really isn’t anything more for me to debate about as I can then understand why you would vote for McCain as then it would make sense. If you follow modern liberal stances on such topics though, then I supposed I would repeat my first post but without all the PUMA stuff.

    Thank you and all the best.

  77. Jennie said,

    June 19, 2008 @ 12:18 am


    I love the matched set analogy. I was just trying to work out some of my confusion about why I, and a lot of people, are so pissed off about the primary. And it isn’t the mainstream die hard HRC supporters. It is the average off the street person who got tired of the HRC slamming going on. It wasn’t Obama slamming her. It was the media. They were practically frothing at the mouth.

    I don’t think the average, off the street, person is going to forget it any time soon. I think it kinda stays in your mind, and begins to make you sick. Then you don’t know why you feel so disgusted. Then you realize because it wasn’t fair, or usual, or playing by the rules. It is un-american in every sense of the word.

    Why do young people hate the Clintons so much? They did nothing but good. I was well off financially during the Clinton administration, and poor before and after.

  78. Jay said,

    June 19, 2008 @ 12:27 am

    I guess I should say a little bit more about what draws me to Obama, and, interestingly, it is the same thing that most concerns you, Aggie. I have spent considerable time abroad over the last few years, in many different types of places. I’m currently in India, which should explain my weird posting times. I am fundamentally convinced that the George Bush/John McCain mindset (lets call it “us against them”) will be the downfall of America. The world has changed SO much in even the last 10-15 years. Globalization, or whatever you want to call it, has created a world were American global dominance is not only impossible, but actually undesirable. Fareed Zakaria’s latest book “The Post-American World” is an excellent reference for more on this issue. Anyway, to put it simply, I believe that Barack Obama understands what few other politicians seem to get, and that is that we MUST start approaching our foreign policy in such a way that reflects the actual global reality, rather than the Cold War/90’s approach of a bi-polar/unipolar world in which American global dominance is an accepted fact. One example is the claim that the president talking to Iran will legitimize them somehow; in whose eyes exactly? The rest of the world no longer feels that they have to defer to us on every issue and while we can debate whether that’s a good development, the fact remains that it is they way things are. I believe that Obama gets it. For the record, I also believe that HRC got it as well. I know that John McCain doesn’t.

  79. Doc Stewart said,

    June 19, 2008 @ 4:04 am

    This household just registered as Independents. Our families have been Democrats for generations, but after what the DNC, the media and Obama campaign has done to Hillary Clinton, we no longer want to be registered Democrats. They make us sick. Don’t much care for McCain either, but if voting for him would prevent Obama from winning the White House and Ugh…….Commander In Chief, then that is what we’ll do. What a pitiful mess our political system has become. It is broken and so corrupt on both sides. Wish we could throw them all out and start over again, plus limit terms in Congress, too.

  80. Jennie said,

    June 19, 2008 @ 4:54 pm

    Obama is like a date that looks good but doesn’t say what he really thinks. You can say he believes everything and nothing because he will never state a real opinion. He told McCain weeks ago that he was going to accept public funds which puts a limit on how much you can spend on your campaign. He just flip flopped on that, and has left the McCain campaign out on a limb. Obama is a liar, and a cheat. Those who vote for him this November will be wishing they hadn’t within the year. An Obama administration is going to make the democrats look like bigger bullies than the Bush administration, and they are going to be voted out in ’12. The Democratic party will be nothing by then.

    A third PUMA party is looking even better now.

  81. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 19, 2008 @ 5:18 pm


    The world is always changing, but, to date, I think that we are still the largest economy in the world. I might be wrong. If I’m right, then the answer to your question about who will care what we say or do regarding Iran is this: They will. Europe will. The Middle East will.

    During the stock market bubble of the 1990’s, we were told over and over again that This Time It Will Be Different. But the truth was that it wasn’t different, gravity still applied. Human behavior doesn’t really change. For example, the 90’s wasn’t the only silly financial bubble. He have the housing bubble today, in the 1600’s in Holland they had a tulip bulb bubble. Human nature doesn’t change just because we have ipods and the internet.

    Achmadinijad is a bully, like Stalin, like Hitler, like Pol Pot, like Saddam Hussein. His regime hangs gay people, for heavens sakes. They stone women for adultery. And they want to “wipe Israel off the map”. They refer to Israel as a stinking corpse and as bacteria. This is no different from the language used in the Third Reich, in its weekly, Der Sturmer, in their official pronouncements, on the radio, etc. Nothing has changed. People are people. Appeasement does not work and never will work. We are wired a certain way, and we respond and learn from our environment. So, if Obama sits and talks with Achmadinijad, he is teaching him that his behavior is ok. That will produce more of the same. Just as Jimmy Carter’s refusal to seriously fight back when our embassy was taken in the 1970’s led to the Islamic Republic of Iran and modern Islamist terrorism. If you don’t believe me, ask the ghost of Neville Chamberlain.

    – Aggie

  82. Vicky said,

    June 19, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

    I really cannot vote for Barack Obama, he’s just like the lousy SOB that we’ve all gone out with at some point. He just says anything that he thinks will work and will turn on a dime on anyone, no loyalty to the American people, no respect for the voters. I’m sorry but I don’t want to spend the next four years being dictated to by some fool that has his head shoved so far up George Soros butt that he’s begun to move toward the light!

  83. Jay said,

    June 20, 2008 @ 12:37 am

    What do you suggest we do then? Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran? Yeah, drawing our already depleted and demoralized military into a third conflict that would simply serve to energize the Islamists seems like a smart solution. In one of the most apt descriptions of Bush’s foreign policy that I have ever seen, I saw the “war on terror” described as a “seven year Al-Qaeda recruiting program.” I completely agree with you that Islamic fundamentalism is a huge threat to the United States, but I think that it is one that most Americans completly misunderstand. You can’t kill all the terrorists!! I don’t believe the adage that for every terrorist you kill, you create ten more because I believe that it overstates the issue. I think its more like for every five you kill, you create six. The creation of terrorists doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Don’t any of you hawks realize that death doesn’t scare these people? They are desparate and angry and looking for someone to blame. We can keep fighting and keep killing and keep dying and its never going to stop. There is a broad line between diplomacy and appeasement. Achmenijad is many things, but he’s not an idiot. I think that lost amid the shuffle in Iran’s quest for nuclear (energy? weapons?) is that it is a country in crisis and the people are grumbling for change. The continued isolation imposed by the West serves no purpose other than to give Iran’s radical leaders talking points around which to rally their people. Opening up diplomatic channels would take away these rallying points and put Achmenijad squarely behind the 8 ball to either fix his country or get the hell out. Isolation doesn’t work. I think that Obama’s gambit is to try and appeal to the Iranian people by meeting with their leader, and I think that it just may work. As far as the pre-conditions, I think that early on he said something without thinking and realized it and corrected his mistake. Since then he’s been firm in saying that several conditions would have to be met. A mistake, to be sure, but at least he fixed it.

  84. Jennie said,

    June 20, 2008 @ 1:46 am

    Thank you very much for responding to my post. I went to the puma blogs, and posted items and got ignored. So it is very gracious of you to have responded to my post. I guess you have to know the people posting before they will respond? I will stop trying.

  85. Vicky said,

    June 20, 2008 @ 6:03 am

    Hi Jennie,

    the PUMA blog might be an invitation thing, they were all over politico inviting people over. Considering what they have been through at the hands of the Obama campaign, I suspect that they are a bit suspicious of people that they haven’t vetted.

  86. Jennie said,

    June 20, 2008 @ 10:17 am

    Thanks for the reply. It is very confusing at the “confluence”. There are so many blogs, and it doesn’t look like there are any leaders. I think they are getting a lot of people from the media spots. I am one of them. Perhaps they should start thinking about organizing for a lot of uninvited guests who need to be heard because they are really angry. I would like to see Hillary as president with all my heart, but if anyone is serious about voting for McCain shouldn’t they be vetting him a bit and figuring out if he is more willing to change than the DNC is. So far all I feel about the democrats is that everyone but Hillary is ignoring us. If McCain listens, and adopts policies that help women, wouldn’t it be in our best interests? I guess what I am trying to say is that McCain appears to me at this point to be the candidate most likely to create change.

  87. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 20, 2008 @ 7:16 pm


    First of all, Achmadinijiad doesn’t have to be “an idiot” … I rarely describe world leaders as idiots. He is a bully and very human. Which means he will behave like other bullies in similar circumstances. Appeasement creates terror. It is counter-intuitive, but any positive response to violence encourages violence. If you think about it from the framework of economics, a positive response generates incentives for violence. If you think about it in terms of psychology, a positive response reinforces violence. They mean the same thing and work exactly the same. Why? Because humans will respond in certain predictable ways. Therefore, the rules of psychology work in economics and visa versa. So whether you have training as a psychologist or an economist, you can see it. Historians can also see it. It is a repeating pattern. Like the sun rising. By the way, moms see it too. Imagine paying a kid to smoke dope. Or giving a four year old a cookie everytime he hit his baby sister.

    When you punish behavior (disincentivize it), it goes down in frequency. And terrorism has actually gone down, at least according to the government figures on worldwide terrorism. It is even down in Iraq. Even in Israel, believe it or not.

    A simpler way of saying this is “people do what works”. Terrorism no longer works as well as it did.

    And yes, sometimes war is the answer. Here’s a couple examples of situations that war solved: slavery in the American South (Civil War), Nazism (gas chambers, forced labor, a lunatic attempting the takeover of the world). When Saddam ran his rape rooms, there really was no talking to him. When Achmadinijiad threatens to wipe Israel off the map, I assume that he means it. He is far, far more likely to respond to an aggressive US than to a nice, young inexperienced guy who can’t make up his mind. Sometimes hawkish attitudes actually prevent or minimize war.

    – Aggie

  88. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 20, 2008 @ 7:20 pm


    The reason that I think McCain is willing to work with us is that he has a history of working “across the aisle”, including major bills with Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. But if Hillary is not running, it comes down to Obama and McCain anyway. And I think Obama is too inexperienced to be the President of the US, especially now.

    – Aggie

  89. Vicky said,

    June 20, 2008 @ 8:25 pm


    If John McCain wins the presidency, he will have a democrat majority to work with in Congress. I personally like the idea of a divided government, nobody gets overly exuberant and there is something resembling a check and balance system, very sorely need at this point in time. We don’t really need a bunch of 1960’s retreads chasing out conservative democrats and further polarizing Washington. I’m so sick of all of the sophomoric BS from a bunch of people who have no clue. John McCain actually wants to explore nuclear energy, they have made big advances in reprocessing which will lead to storage times of a couple of hundred years as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years. Obama would close his eyes to that and opt instead for stuff that may or may not be here in 10 years. He will not even consider nuclear because that is fissable and he is determined to get rid of all such things and disarm this country.

    When I was a kid, I remember the Carter administration. I remember lots of ranting at the dinner table, the misery index being broadcast every night, lots of sweaters and blankets, strange casserole dinners, and friends and family members cursing about gas lines that emptied the tank idling before you even got up to the pump. Oh, and I remember nightly broadcasts of a miserable bunch of hostages who were wheeled straight off of the plane and into a dentist’s office due to not being allowed to brush their teeth throughout their captivity. For all of that Barack Obama and his band of true believers will be far worse if they get the chance.

    Get real Jay!

  90. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 21, 2008 @ 9:31 am


    Thanks for posting about the good old days of the Carter administration!

    By the way, just saw a news clip of Obama blaming Republicans for talking about race.. and amazingly, the African American female announcer said that she was so disappointed in him, because he is injecting race in the conversation when McCain is only talking about issues.

    – Aggie

  91. Jason said,

    June 25, 2008 @ 2:43 pm

    I’m not a regular here, but I’d like to correct Aggie on something.

    Psychologists pretty much 100% agree that punishment does not work on children (or anyone else). It does not prevent the bad behavior–it merely causes the misbehaving individual to seek to find ways to get away with it without being caught.

    The only reinforcement concept that works is positive. Offering incentives to encourage a misbehaving individual to stop is proven. Punishing them for not doing what you want is proven to be FALSE.

    You seem to be basing a foreign policy idea on utterly flawed psychological concepts.

  92. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 25, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

    Welcome, Jason.

    I’ll let Aggie answer because you addressed her, and because she’ll answer better than I ever could. Just remember that, contrary to our name, we’re not bloodthirsty so much as slightly parched.


  93. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 25, 2008 @ 4:03 pm

    Hi Jason,

    I just looked up reinforcement on the wikipedia site, for those who want to follow the ins and outs of the argument:

    Punishment refers to adding something aversive in order to decrease a behavior. The most common example of this is disciplining (e.g. spanking) a child for misbehaving. The reason we do this is because the child begins to associate being punished with the negative behavior. The punishment is not liked and therefore to avoid it, he or she will stop behaving in that manner.

    … Research has found positive reinforcement is the most powerful of any of these. Adding a positive to increase a response not only works better, but allows both parties to focus on the positive aspects of the situation. Punishment, when applied immediately following the negative behavior can be effective, but results in extinction when it is not applied consistently. Punishment can also invoke other negative responses such as anger and resentment.


    Here is the key paragraph:

    Distinguishing “positive” from “negative” can be difficult, and the necessity of the distinction is often debated[2]. For example, in a very warm room, a current of external air serves as positive reinforcement because it is pleasantly cool or negative reinforcement because it removes uncomfortably hot air[3]. Some reinforcement can be simultaneously positive and negative, such as a drug addict taking drugs for the added euphoria and eliminating withdrawal symptoms. Many behavioral psychologists simply refer to reinforcement or punishment—without polarity—to cover all consequent environmental changes.

    My education might be out of date since I was taught many moons ago. At that time, all of the research said that intermittent reinforcement was the strongest strategy and had the greatest effect on learning. The examples were things like getting frustrated when the soda machine swallowed your money and kicking it. Sometimes, but not always, it works. It works intermittently. And therefore, most people will kick. That’s what my profs believed anyway.

    I think that we have certainly reinforced terrorism intermittently. Sometimes when they blow people up, they get to air their grievances in the media, at the UN. Often they receive extra funding either from western nations or from leadership in parts of the Muslim world. Saddam Hussein was famous for paying $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers… not really intermittent, more positive.

    And my idea is that we extinguish these behaviors by not encouraging them – for sure. No money, no media, no glory. On top of that, I think that we need to punish them.

    Saying that punishment doesn’t work means that consequences for bad behavior don’t work. Is that really true? If you say to a child: “If you bite your brother, you’re not going to get to watch Barney… or whatever. And then the child does bite and the mom turns Barney off… are you saying that that cannot teach a child not to bite? If so, how is it that children eventually give up biting or hitting? Or when the playground bully beats up smaller kids and they learn to avoid him, haven’t they learned something through punishment, however unfair that lesson is? If children learn not to go near dad when he’s drunk, because he can get mean, haven’t they learned from punishment? There has to have been the first time, the time when they did approach him and he did yell or hit or whatever scared them away in the future.

    On a broader scale, I suppose you could say that wars are punishment and can lead to large scale behavior changes. During WWII, Germans had concentration camps, afterwards they didn’t have concentration camps. In-between they were punished with bombing, etc. We didn’t conclude that war with positive reinforcement.

    I think that if punishment truly doesn’t work with individuals we are all sunk. Really, truly screwed, because it means that if we inadvertently encourage bad behavior, we cannot stop it moving forward. It would be like life in a vacuum, without friction. When something moves in a certain direction, there would be nothing there to brake it.

    I’m genuinely interested in learning where I am wrong here.

    – Aggie

  94. bendra said,

    June 26, 2008 @ 6:16 pm

    You are quite wrong about McCain being a very liberal republican. He’s consistently on the conservative wing of his own party on every issue except immigration (which he flip-flopped on during the rep. primaries).

    Here is are charts of his voting record by liberal interest groups:
    As you can see, he’s overall rated as the fifth most conservative senator! This includes the 0% rating by NARAL because he’s strongly pro-life. Other than on immegration its fair to call McCain an accross-the-board conservative. I think a lot of people mistake McCain’s congeneality for moderation; he doesn’t call his political opponents trators or cowards like some other Republicans which makes him a decent guy, but it doesn’t make him a moderate. Of course there are other reasons than political allegiance to vote for a candidate, but get your facts streight.
    As you can see from the same chart, Clinton and Obama have very similar ratings, with Obama rated as slightly closer to the political center. The notion of Obama as on the far left of the party just isn’t born out by the facts.

  95. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 26, 2008 @ 6:48 pm


    Your points are simultaneously valid and incorrect.

    John McCain is at least NOT conservative (if not actually liberal) on more issues than just immigration. Campaign finance reform (aka restriction of free speech) and global warming (aka hooey) are two issues that come to mind without effort. A more mainstream conservative site could give you many others, I’m sure.

    As for your chart which puts Obama at the center of his party, I have a chart of my own which places him at the top of the liberal charts last year, and Hillary 16th. Interestingly, they both swung far to the left last year, presumably in preparation for running. So, they’re hardly the same, and they’re hardly at the center even of their own party—though Hillary comes closer.


  96. bendra said,

    June 26, 2008 @ 8:28 pm

    Oh really – so you give more credence to a single survey by the national journal than the composite ratings by the ACLU, ADA, CDF, etc? These are SEVEN DIFFERENT interest groups who track voting. There are lots of ways to slice and dice votes, but I think you just like this one because it gives you the answer you want.
    Re: global warming, McCain may give a speech or two and say some nice things but when it comes to action, his voting record gets a big fat zero from the League of Conservation Voters. I think they know better than National Journal, or frankly thank you.
    If you want you can go to vote-smart.org and see how various interest groups rank the candidates (although it is a pain to navigate their site); its just dishonest to pretend that McCain is not a solid conservative, or that Obama is on the extreme left of the Democratic party. I’m done now…its your blog; you get the last word.

  97. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 26, 2008 @ 9:08 pm

    BTL can give his last word, but here’s mine. I would have voted for Hillary. I am not voting for Barry under any circumstances. Too inexperienced and too sleazy.

    – Aggie

  98. Nicole said,

    June 26, 2008 @ 11:24 pm

    What’s will all these idiots wanting a “conservative” Democratic party? Why do we need two? If you’re conservative, feel free to join the Republicans (and I know you will).

    Also, I hope all the “democrats” now voting for McCain see their kids shipped off to Iran, never to be seen again.

  99. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 5:16 am

    I guess Bendra has already stormed off in a huff, but I don’t think it’s insulting or inaccurate to describe Obama as being from the far left of his party—at least among its elected Senators. Really, I thought that’s what you guys liked about him. I don’t know why “my” survey was so wrong, and yours were so “right”. Now, in the last two days, he’s come out on the Neanderthal side (my side, more or less) of two Supreme Court decisions, saying he supports the state-sponsored executions of child rapists and the right to pack heat. So, maybe Bendra’s right: he does have Republican tendencies.

    I don’t want or need the last word, but I’d appreciate it if all words were civil (and, yes, I’m talking to myself as much as anyone).

  100. bendra said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

    Bendra get distracted from his job if he gets involved in internet discussions so I have to limit myself.

    Anyway, the difference between the two charts is that one represents a single survey by a news organization, and the other represents the composite of several liberal interest groups. I think liberal interest groups are best positioned to determine what votes are liberal and score accordingly.
    What I was reacting mostly to was the repeated claim that McCain is “a very liberal Republican”. Let me unpack the data I referenced a bit for you:

    American Civil Liberties Union –
    Obama 22nd 88%
    Clinton 31st 82%
    McCain 83rd 17%

    Americans for Democratic Action –
    Obama 47th(tied) 75%
    Clinton 47th(tied) 75%
    McCain 93rd 10%

    Children’s Defense Fund –
    Obama 58th 60%
    Clinton 49th 70%
    McCain 93rd 10%

    League of Conservation Voters –
    Obama 51st 67%
    Clinton 43rd 73%
    McCain 98th (tied) 0%

    National Abortion Rights Action League –
    Obama 1st (tied) 100%
    Clinton 1st (tied) 100%
    McCain 64th (tied) 0%

    Service Employees International Union –
    Obama 28th (tied) 90%
    Clinton 5th (tied) 91%
    McCain 79th 14%

    Notice a pattern? Clinton and Obama have very similar voting records, and McCain is amoung the most conservative republicans over and over again. You want to keep saying Obama is the most liberal senator based on the one National Journal survey? Fine; just know that its a very dubious assertion and that all of the liberal interest groups disagree with you. But for goodness sake stop with the McCain = liberal nonsense; there is simply no justification for it.
    I should mention that I’m not strongly against John McCain and think he has some qualities that would make him a good president – he thinks for himself, he’s intelligent and experienced, and he has a lot of personal honor. Most importantly he negotiates with his political opponents rather than attempting to bludgeon, bully, and destroy them (I think this is where most people get the idea that he’s a moderate from) . Like I said in the first post, there are reasons other than ideology to support a candidate. But in terms of ideology, McCain is clearly a Conservative Republican.

  101. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 2:17 pm

    Thank you for the data, Bendra. Very thorough. I have only two comments. One, by quoting specific special interest groups, I believe you get skewed results (if only a little). For example, McCain scores 0 from NARAL, while Obama and Clinton get 100%, on the basis of what must be very few votes, and on only one topic. Still, I suppose you that if you take enough snapshots—civil liberties, abortion, conservation, etc.—you can come up with a fairly reliable portrait.

    That’s what I thought the National Journal survey was. I don’t know its methodology, but I’ve heard many references to it. If it’s considered right-wing, I’m sure you’ll admit every source you cite is pretty far left. If so many different surveys can come up with so many different pictures, I wonder what value they actually have?

    I think we’ll have to concede the point that McCain is not a liberal Republican in the sense that, say, Olympia Snowe or Lincoln Chaffee are. But you’ll have to concede that he is not accepted by the conservatives as one of them. He’s not, uh-uh, no way. I’ve already mentioned a few issues on which he’s left some very angry conservatives in the lurch. There’s probably a McCainSucks.org that enumerates a few more. Even the mainstream media (or should I say especially the MSM) have noticed broad conservative discomfort with him as the nominee. Bob Barr’s candidacy is another clue.

    But thanks for sticking with us. That which does not kill our arguments makes them smarter.

  102. R.W. Crowell said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 4:29 pm

    I heard about this site on MSNBC today and I had to stop in a check it out and I have to say that it is utterly ridiculous, if you’re voting on platform and issues, to say that you’d vote for McCain over Obama if you supported Hilliary Clinton.

    No matter how many excuses some of you come up with, this is all identity politics. It is the very reason citizens in other democratic nations wonder how we can be so stupid? We deserve what we get if this is how careless and vindictive we can be with our votes.

    Some of you need to seriously look inward and evaluate your irrational responses to a “fair” election process that didn’t work out the way we wanted. The democratic nomination is won with electoral votes and not popular vote. We all knew that going in and we don’t get to change the rules or move the goal posts to fit our needs.

    Also, McCain is in a fact a right wing conservative. No matter how he may have voted in the past, he has flipped to support the Bush tax cuts, offshore drilling and adopts the very same foreign policy as the Bush administration and the Neo-conservatives. There is no sane justification for a Clinton supporter to support McCain, if you’re voting on issues that is.

  103. roger said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 5:28 pm

    You people are idiots.
    Every day of your miserable lives you’re as dumb as a a crack on the sidewalk but that doesn’t stop you from every four years becoming a pusedo-intellectual- loaded with “facts and figures.” No wonder your jobs get outsourced and your gas goes up to $5 a gallon.
    I support Obama but I’m thinking of voting for McCain just so I can laugh while he helps corporate America put the final screws on your retarded demographic.
    Most of you clowns probably don’t even have healthcare. I think I’m becoming a conservative elitist- the masses will go dancing to their own graves.

  104. BlacklistCommie said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

    I have yet to hear a single solitary fact or talking point against Obama that wasn’t just a blatant personal attack, “like he reminds me of a bad date i had”, “he’s sleazy”. How am I expected to understand your point of view if you have no point. I hear Hillary supports counting the whole of Michigan and Florida as hers in order to placate the popular vote, but no one but Hillary supporters can agree with that. It seems P.U.M.A. thinks spending eight years in the white house as the first lady is experience, but if she was so close to Bill all those years, when did he have time for Monica, or any of the others. Finally, I don’t believe Obama needs P.U.M.A’s small minority to win the election. If by some small chance he loses the Presidency, you, P.U.M.A. have created a platform for the rest of the world to blame, not white males, Thank you

  105. bendra said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 6:44 pm

    National Journal is conservative, but that doesn’t make them wrong neccesarily either.

    Here is the raw data they used to score the candidates:

    They used 100 senate votes with each one weighted 1 to 3. Because both Obama and Clinton were campagning a lot, they each missed a lot of votes. Of the votes where both candidates were present, they disagreed just twice:

    Allow certain immigrants to stay in the United States while renewing their visas.
    HRC N, BHO Y

    Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators.
    HRC N, BHO Y

    The second of these I’m not sure even is a legitimate conservative/liberal issue, but whatever. The other 63 times both were present they voted the same way. In other words, I take this as just more evidence that Clinton and Obama have very similar political views.
    It is my understanding that National Journal ranked Kerry the most liberal senator in 2004 for the same reason – he was off campagning and only came around to vote on critical partisan bills. McCain didn’t even show up at enough votes for the Journal to give him a ranking in 2008. I don’t really have a problem with the National Journal rankings per se, but because of all of the no-shows by all the candidates it seems only fair to use the numbers from 1007 or 2006 instead. Obama was ranked 16th in 2006 and in 2007 10th. Pretty liberal still, of course.

  106. L said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

    McCain is a part of the same cabal that has led us down the disastrous path we have found ourselves in at this point.

    Choose your battles wisely.

    History shows that incumbent presidents are very difficult to boot out of office for a variety of reasons. Voting for McCain, who truly shares very little in common with the Democratic values that both Clinton and Obama voters hold dear, would be a vote for a man who is beholden to the same Republican voting bloc from which Bush has drawn his support.

    If you believe that McCain is a more “liberal” Republican than
    -those he has surrounded himself with
    -the right-wing religious zealots who endorsed him
    -the neoconservative sociopaths who have engineered the foreign policy he has stood behind so vehemently
    -those who drafted his pro-drilling, pro fossil-fuels, anti-Kyoto environmental policies…

    Then I am afraid you are in for a nasty surprise that everyone but the PUMAs saw coming. I urge all those who want to vote for McCain or a third party candidate to consider the importance of living on to fight another day. I understand the hurt that Clinton supporters feel, but that fight will be nigh impossible after being bled dry by another eight years of the same nightmarish Republican trainwreck that we have had to already endure.

  107. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 27, 2008 @ 9:42 pm


    If you are willing to judge McCain, then are you willing to do the same with Obama? Because he is arguably much closer to the cast of clowns we’ve grown to know and love in the past few months. How ’bout that Reverent Wright? God Damn America!! For 20 years. The US government gives AIDS to black people.

    Or Michelle, “never been proud of my country before” Obama.

    Or Father Pfleger. Or hero to all these guys Louis “Judaism is a gutter religion Farrakan.

    Or Tony Rezko, felon. Or ACORN, who generated thousands and thousands of illegal ballots.

    This is The Company That Obama Keeps. These are the people that built his career. And he will be beholden to them when he assumes office.

    He simply isn’t ready for prime time. Lacks character. Lacks experience.

    – Aggie

  108. James H. McCall said,

    June 28, 2008 @ 9:26 am

    Dear Lionesses, If you place your votes in favor of a viable independent candidate, you may express your dissatisfaction with the candidate-selection process in the democratic party. Also, if enough of you vote for said independent, it is quite possible that neither major party candidate will receive suficient electoral votes to achieve the presidency. I cannot imagine the excitement! Perhaps, Senator Clinton would consider being an independent’s V.P., ultimately paving the way for her own presidency in 2012. I feel that she will be deemed forever ‘The Loser’, whether she run’s as Obama’s V.P. or not and whether Obama wins or not. This you obviously do not desire.

    Thank you, JHM

  109. Chet Bowen said,

    June 28, 2008 @ 9:29 am

    As Tim Russet (RIP) always said “Florida, Florida, Florida! We always get the dirty end of the stick, even when we voted to nominate Hillary Clinton as the presidential candidate. Well, look what happened to our votes. Half of us were eliminated. And don’t get me started on the media. Four years ago they destroyed Howard Dean and that’s nothing compared to what they did to Hillary. Obama got rammed down our throats while Hillary was crucified. This entire nomination process was manipulated beginning with the caucus states where the numbers were skewed to include large numbers of college students recruited by Obama’s staff. From then on the press took over.

  110. K. said,

    June 28, 2008 @ 10:34 am

    I am a woman and I did support Hillary, however, I can not believe that people in my own party would listen to people who are painting themselves as “feminists” when what they really are is republicans wearing democrat clothing and trying to give us 4 more years of the lies and torture that this country has been living through. A war that is killing our greatest asset for no apparent reason, unemployment that is soaring, gas prices just as bad as what we saw during the 70’s and no end in sight. STOP listening to these people and make up the mind that God gave you!!!

  111. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 28, 2008 @ 3:34 pm


    You are using the same strong-arm tactics that most of the Obama crowd is using to try to force people to vote for your guy. They are not Republicans. They are democrats who simply want an experienced candidate. Obama has no experience. I think as I look over all of my own reasons for refusing to vote for him, that is the strongest reason. The second strongest reason is Jeremiah Wright. You have to be insane to expose little kids to the rantings of that man. I just am not comfortable with his judgment. Jeremiah Wright? William Ayers? Are you kidding?

    McCain is more conservative than Hillary, obviously, but equally obviously is much more liberal than Bush. It isn’t the end of the world if he becomes President. He probably won’t, but believe me, even if he does, the sun will rise the following morning.


    – Aggie

  112. Michael said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 12:09 am

    This is a free country vote for who you want, but in 2012 expect the same kind of party extemeism from another core constituency in the democratic party, we are sitting idle now while you belittle and bemoan Obama, who is, I dare to say just as liberal as Hillary. Just remember blacks have been helping elect democratic presidents for years, with all this uproar, you are right I think its time to leave the democratic party. I hope Hillary does win the nomination in 2012. Believe me WE WON’T FORGET. So you can expect a different kind of PUMA come 2012

  113. Roger said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

    Experience, you say? Hmm, let’s see what “experienced” politicians have given us. A war in Iraq, out of control gas prices, complete loss of respect on a global level, the Patriot Act and along with that diminishing individual rights and privacy, etc, etc, etc.

    So, go ahead, be angry, bitter, and spitfeul, and allow “McBush” to be elected. And then he’ll probably appoint one, possibly two, new Supreme Court justices during his term, and then we’ll see more individual rights and freedoms go down the toilet.

    Personally, I think you PUMA supporters are a front for a 527 Republican group, making all of you nothing more than a bunch of racists.

    Talk about cowardly.


  114. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

    I just want to point out – again – that disagreeing with Obama and his supporters does not make a person racist. This is true, no matter how many times you scream: Racist! And it is beyond ridiculous to accuse us of being a 527 Republican group. You are paranoid.

    If you think that the world will be better off if the US is led by an inexperienced Chicago politician with ties to extremist ideology a la Reverend Wright and William Ayers, that’s fine. But many of us disagree.

    – Aggie

  115. bendra said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 1:30 pm

    Obama’s level of experience is a legitimate issue, but how about some context? If he does indeed become president he’ll have had seven years in the Illinois State Senate and four years as a senator for a total of 11 years; thats more governmental experience than 21 previous presidents including:
    Woodrow Wilson (2 years as governor)
    Teddy Rosevelt (2 years as governor, 2 years state leg.)
    FDR (4 years as governor, 2 years state leg.)
    Ronald Regan (8 years as governor)
    Abraham Lincoln (2 years House of Rep, 8 years state leg.)
    Harry Truman (10 years House of Rep)
    Dwight Eisenhower (No previous governmental experience, although he was a four star general for 11 years)

    Furthermore, the relationship between experience level and how good a president is seems to be non-existant; as you can see there have been many successful presidents with relatively little governmental experience and the most experienced president ever (James Buchannan) is widely regarded as a failure. See http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html for a more complete breakdown.

    You say you like Clinton, but she would not have been a particularly experienced president herself with only 8 years as a senator on taking office. Of course she was married to Bill C, although she never had an official position during his administration, never held security clearence, never attended security council or situation room meetings and as far as the record shows never participated in decision-making during a crisis. As far as I can tell, her only substantive governmental role was her failed Health Care initiative. This is not intended as a take-down of HRC; I would happily have voted for her had she been the Democratic nominee.

    You’ve already said that your mind is already made up and you would never under any circumstance voter for Obama; your opinion did not change when I showed you that the view of him as “the most liberal senator” was poorly grounded, you just changed your reasons for finding him unacceptable. I don’t expect you to change your mind now either, and frankly I have no interest in convincing you one way or the other. If you really were thinking that Obama’s experience was an issue you would research what he actually _did_ during his years in government. I suggest that your motives are not as pure as you would like to believe.

  116. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 2:16 pm

    Are you really suggesting that Illinois State Senate compares to governor??!! Or US Congressman? Even if he voted present 130 times? (I’m sort of giggling here; I assume you’re joking.)

    Clinton “only” had 8 years of US Senate? I guess we’ll just overlook the insight she might have gleaned from 8 years in the White House.

    Obama is inexperienced by any rational measure. By your count, 8 years as town animal control officer would equal 8 years of experience. But he’s also hung out with some sleazy, sleazy people for 20 years. We can’t really assess his record because, due to all the “present” votes, there isn’t a record. We can’t go by his stated positions because he changes them more quickly than a card shark messing with the deck (Jerusalem forever united – June 4, 2008, Oops, strike that, that’s not at all what I meant, June 5, 2008) I will accept public financing… Oops, strike that I support the DC hand gun legislation… not quite I will debate John McCain anywhere anytime, Oops, what I meant to say was that as long as it is July 4th and one other date, That’s not the Reverend Wright I knew, that’s not the Tony Rezko I knew…

    It goes on and on. I am sure I’m forgetting a lot here. He is inexperienced and sometimes it is painful to watch. The Iranians will have a field day with him. Obama is Carter all over again.

    – Aggie

  117. bendra said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

    You don’t read very deeply. By your logic, Abraham Lincoln was woefully inexperienced and should never have been president. You also come across as very shrill and close minded.

  118. Fed-up crone said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

    Oh, for the record, Barack does not mean “blessed.” It means “thunderbolt,” in both Arabic and Hebrew. It t was also the name of Mohammed’s horse.

  119. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 3:30 pm


    Describing women who disagree with you as shrill and closed-minded is about the most counter-productive thing you can say. Are you trying to alienate the PUMAs? That’s what it sounds like.

    Also, Lincoln was elected to the Illinois state house in 1834—a full 26 years before becoming president; he first came to the US Congress in 1846, 14 years before the presidency. Barack Obama came to fame on the basis of one speech, delivered less than four years ago. I’d lose the Lincoln analogy if I were you.


  120. Fed-up crone said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

    Lincoln- Obama??? Surely you have better reality testing that to suggest any similarity other than both being tall males…

  121. Fed-up crone said,

    June 29, 2008 @ 4:06 pm

    Someone said to me that Clinton reminded them of Nixon. I countered with the image of Obama as Carter. While Carter was proven right in many of his initiatives over time, the country did not like his message and we all paid. Are you ready for history to repeat itself?
    Obama may have some good ideas and positions, but it takes more than speeches to get legislation through Congress. I do not have confidence in his skills-other than in giving speeches.

  122. Ann said,

    June 30, 2008 @ 2:07 am

    No one who truly believed in what Hillary was fighting for would vote for McCain. That would be like slapping her in the face and throwing away everything she believed in and fought to make possible.

    I don’t think Obama is some kind of God, but his positions on the issues are almost identical to Hillary’s. McCain is the exact opposite. Anyone who is claiming they will vote for McCain is either a liar, or else they never listened to one word that Hillary said during her entire campaign.

    It’s time to stop acting like 6 year olds and do what’s right for our country, instead of worrying about your hurt feelings. McCain is the worst thing that could happen to women in America. I’m sad that Hillary didn’t win, but I’m even more disgusted that some of you are talking about stabbing her in the back and voting for McCain out of spite. If McCain wins, it will ruin Hillary and keep her from making any of her plans come true.

    You all need to take a good look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you ever really believed in Hillary in the first place, because if you did, you certainly wouldn’t be threatening to vote for John McCain.

  123. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    June 30, 2008 @ 5:45 am


    Again I sense a condescending tone. This isn’t “about Hillary” in the sense of Hillary becoming a soap opera figure that can be stabbed in the back. We are not behaving “like 6 year olds”, we are making a decision, based on available facts, that winds up saying that Obama is unqualified to be President of the United States. Disagreeing with you is not childish; it is simply disagreeing.

    Speaking only for myself, my decision is about the United States of America. It is about the Democratic Party and whether it will be run democratically or not in the future.

    I would also quibble with the notion that Obama represents the same positions as Clinton’s, only because we don’t know for sure what he represents, do we? That is a huge problem for me.

    – Aggie

  124. fed-up crone said,

    June 30, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

    The choice is quite stark. I do not see it as an embarrassment of riches, Just an embarrassment.

  125. Michael said,

    June 30, 2008 @ 11:48 pm

    You know we can disagree without being disagreeable. Hillary does not walk on water, she has skeletons too. Tell what experience she has that her such a better candidate? I want to get past all the rhetoric and talk issues. Make me understand why Hillary is so much better than Obama. Because she was first lady? tell me what she has done that makes her so much more qualified to be commander in chief? Give me answers to these compelling questions so I may understand your point of view. Is she a Washington insider? One of the things that most americans HATE about Washington, I lived in Washington for 17 years, and I’ll be honest Bill Clinton to me was the best president I have seen in my life time, but because he was, does that mean she will? hmmm who knows, Bill Clinton came to Washing with as many skeletons as you say Obama has, and he didn’t do to bad, why can’t you give someone else a chance andput the partisan stuff aside and try to change what we have now.

  126. matt said,

    July 9, 2008 @ 8:13 am

    wow. people here have a lot of misplaced anger. If you feel the media did not give HRC a fair shake blame them (a feeling that must not be felt by anyone who watched MSNBC every morning) not Obama. Someone on this board made the comment that Obama circumvented FL and MI from voting. I realize you are angry at the results – but you are letting that anger and frustration blind you from reality…that there are two sides to everything – and the DNC ended up breaking the rules set up by Ickies and the rest of the party leaders at the beginning. As a democrat, i would hate to lose your votes – but really this is sounding a lot like a bunch of sour grapes being led by the likes of fox news.

  127. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 9, 2008 @ 8:40 am


    I think that the feeling overall is that the media and the DNC were unfair to Senator Clinton. The issue goes beyond her straight to the heart of democracy, to the basic concept of one individual, one vote. Not one person, 1/2 vote.

    People writing on boards type quickly, but I don’t think that anyone believes the Obama personally denied Senator Clinton her rights. It was the behavior of the party + the media. He’s just another politician. Beyond that, there are serious concerns about his experience and ability to lead the nation.

    I will not vote for him under any circumstances. That is what democracy is all about, isn’t it? We all get to choose which candidate to support. As things stand now, my vote will still be a full vote, not a half vote.

    – Aggie

  128. Michael said,

    July 10, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

    I agree with you, democracy is all about voting for who you want, thank you for disagreeing without being disagreeable. I won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances, I have serious concerns about her, period. We all choose which candidate to support, I am gearing up for 2012, this BLOG is a great idea, I like how you have conducted yourself you have set a good precedent, one which I hope to follow when I start mine. I also agree that this goes beyond Hillary, because now I will fight like HELL to keep any Democrat from being elected in the future. This has been a sobering look into American politics for me, but thanks again for inspiring me to follow in your footsteps, this is my hail and farewell to the Democratic party its been a hell of a ride, I guess thats means I am a liberal Republican now. Thats going to take some getting used to. Thank you and God bless America

  129. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 11, 2008 @ 6:59 am


    I hear you. I still think that a strong two-party system is the ideal. The Democrats have gone astray for sure, but it doesn’t have to be permanent. If we change the tone, the thinking might also move in a more reasonable direction. All the leftists that scream and tantrum at those that disagree have taken over the party, at least for the time being. No party “owns” any voter. So moving back and forth as the times demand seems to make the most sense to me.

    – Aggie

  130. Mary said,

    July 13, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

    There is no way in hell would a Democrat EVER support McCain – a man who is HARD-right, who has voted 88.9% in-line with Republicans in the 10 years, who has stated he will continue Bush’s legacy, and who “deeply admires” him.

    Meanwhile, Obama has voted 97% similar to Clinton in the Senate. I do not believe for one second that ANY Democrat would EVER vote McCain. Those sites that claim to be disgruntled Hillary supporters, are not, and never where – they are set up and run by Republicans, attempting to divide and destroy the Democrat Party.

  131. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 13, 2008 @ 12:40 pm

    It’s worth noting that “Mary” left this same comment on 15 different posts within a span of about 15 minutes. This is the only one I allowed. It is also worth noting that when I wrote “her” an email asking “her” not to spam the site, it came back as a bogus address.

    Is this how all Obama-nutters behave? Next thing, we’ll find out her name isn’t even Mary.


  132. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 13, 2008 @ 4:47 pm

    I’d like to add that BTL and I actually have different perspectives on many things, including the presidential election. Whether the Obama supporters believe this or not, many democrats simply will not vote for the guy. Period. He isn’t qualified to be President; I have acquaintances with more experience than he. It is too big and too important of a job to give to someone who isn’t ready for prime time.

    – Aggie

  133. Jeremy Grey said,

    July 14, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

    Hillary Clinton speaking to the American Federation of Teachers this weekend….

    “…the only way that we can realize the promise of this country, begin solving our problems again, be respected in the world, is to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States of America” In fact, nothing we care about is divorced from what happens in our politics,” she said. “If anybody ever had a doubt as to whether it mattered who our president was, George W. Bush should have disabused you of every possible doubt that anyone might have ever entertained.”

    I didn’t say it. An Obama troll or kool aid drinker didn’t say it. HRC said it. Are you going to support her in helping the nominee?

  134. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 14, 2008 @ 10:15 pm


    – Aggie

  135. andre said,

    July 15, 2008 @ 8:37 pm

    all the charges about sexism is bullshit! sure some idiots displayed a sign at a Clinton rally but what does that have to do with Obama? Obama won the election so you angry folks need to get over it. Crying over Michigan and Florida doesn’t make sense since that still wouldn’t have given her the lead in pledge delegates. Superdelegates simply awarded to the person who had earned the most pledge delegates which reflected the will of the people. Obama stopped campaigning against Hilary after NC and IN primaries. He was in Florida, Michigan and Iowa preparing for the general election leaving Clinton to campaign by herself in WV, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. You’re even counting Puerto Rico which doesn’t vote to boost your argument, how pathetic is that? I voted for Hilary and will gladly support Obama along with the majority of Clinton supporters who are similar to the woman we supported earlier, rational human beings.

  136. ADB said,

    July 16, 2008 @ 10:22 pm

    In the end, McCain is going to be a conservative Republican. Birth Control will equal Abortion will equal Murder. Three more Scalia/Alito/Roberts/Thomases will make sure the Supreme Court slides back a hundred years.

    I am not an Obamabot – Both sides played hardball. What is left now is McCain v. Obama. McCain is a Neanderthal knuckledragger throwback. He may not have used to be, but he is now, and most of the people who are voting for him expect him to be. It is a choice between four more years of the worst possible imaginable president and policies, or not.

    By the time John McCain gets out of office, everything will be gone. No universal health care, no alternative energy Apollo Project, no end to war, ever.

    I don’t see how there’s even a choice, especially if the only reason anyone would vote for McCain is because they’re angry about the Democratic primary. Talk about pissing in your own pool.

  137. Lynn in Ohio said,

    July 20, 2008 @ 8:29 am

    I truly believe that the election of John McCain will be better for the real democratic party in the long run. He will not seek a second term leaving it wide open for Hillary in 2012. I fear Obama will be another Jimmy Carter and set up republicans for another couple decades in power after he blows one term.

  138. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 20, 2008 @ 10:03 am

    I agree with you, Lynn. I want to see a strong two-party system and don’t want to see either party run by the crazies: Patrick Buchannan on the right, MoveOn on the left. Obama is tied to too many kooks.

    Plus, he is inexperienced.

    – Aggie

  139. Carlos said,

    July 22, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

    I’m not quite sure why it is that some of senator Clinton’s supporters are so angry with the results of the primaries, given that the rules for the primaries were established before the first vote was cast and tha all parties agreed to them.

    Prior to the beginning of the primary seaon, both senators Clinton and Obama pledged to honor the DNC’s decision not to recognize the delegations from Florida and Michigan, thus rendering primary results from these states moot. Personally, I think that this was a poor position for the DNC to take, but it was a decision reached according to the rules of the road in place at the time.

    I followed both camps during the primaries and found that the rhetoric being shared by senator Clinton’s campaign was far more negative and unflattering than was that being promoted by senator Obama’s campaign.

    In November, when voters enter the polling booth (or vote as absentees) there will be only two viable candidates to choose from. One will be John McCain, a man who has not supported veterans’ causes; a man who has not voted to support a woman’s right to choose; a man who relied on ex-senator Phil Gramm to develop his economic policies (Gramm was the architect of regulations which allowed the Enron fiasco to take place, the sub-prime lending industry go unregulated with the results that has undermined the health of our economy and who recently was forced to resign as the National Co-Chairman of the McCain campaign) and would thus contiue to follow economic policies that would contiue to undermine our nation’s economic health; a man whose claim to fame is that he was shot down over North Viet Nam and spent several years being tortured in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, yet who ended up acquiescing to the current Administration’s efforts to permit torture of prisoners in their “War on Terrorism.”

    Perhaps one may conclude, after well over a year of campaigning, that senator Obama isn’t extremely well qualified to assume the office of president, but is senator McCain really the person that you would want leading this nation? Remember, senator McCain has already pledged that he would appoint Supreme Court judges in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Allito and Roberts, thus ensuring the reversal of Roe v Wade, and has also pledged to continue the fighting in Iraq until victory, a yet to be clearly defined goal, is schieved there

    When talk of the 2008 campaign began, what seems like eons ago, I wasn’t too crazy about Hillary Clinton as a candidate, simply because I believed that the political right would be inspired to come out and vote against her in honor of her husband’s exploits in office and the hatred that the right has for his presidency. I’m still convinced that this would happen if a Clinton were to be on the Democratic ticket. Personally, I don’t align myself with the right wing’s attitudes and think that the Republican party is morally bankrupt, proving itself to be so in virtually every major policy area during the last seven years.

    My personal preference in the beginning was congressman Kucinich, a committed and ethical candidate. Unfortunately, he didn’t make it over the long run, and so my choices are now between a Democrat and a Republican. My choice for the presidency is clear, and it won’t be a choice for the Republican candidate.

    How about divorcing your emotions from the primary process and rally around the Democratic candidate. How about voting for a better future for our country? If we don’t ensure that this happens then my son, a career soldier who has been deplolyed eight times since 2001, will end up rotating through Iraq and Afghanistan over and over again. Our financial future will be dim, except if you are among the financially well-off. Our environment will be sacrificed, because under a Republican administration, the environment is the unwanted step child that is treated with great disdane.

    And so because your candidate isn’t on the ticket, and because you feel slighted somehow as a result, you would facilitate a victory which would ensure that our country continues down a dark path? Is this what you want? I sure hope it isn’t.

  140. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 22, 2008 @ 6:34 pm


    Obama is a bumbling fool. Perhaps I should say he’s an arrogant, bumbling fool. The lies about the surge are over the top. Clinton was competent, Obama is not. Many of us simply will not vote for him. I will absolutely vote for McCain and I hope he wins.

    – Aggie

  141. Brian said,

    July 22, 2008 @ 8:05 pm

    This is plain crazy. You know McCain will kill Roe v Wade. You know McCain will get us into another war (Iran) that we cannot afford either in lives or in treasure. You know McCain will cut taxes on big corporations and leave us little guys to fend for ourselves. You know McCain doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground and depends on people like Phil Grahm who by the way got us into the banking and housing foreslosure mess. Let’s not forget Enron and the deregulation of the speculators (Oil prices).

    By McCain own words he is not strong on the economy. He is a hawk on foreign policy when now might not be time for a hawk. The only reason he went for campaign spending reform was because he knew he could carry Obama’s jock strap when it came to raising money. He was comfortable enough in Arizona but when it came to the national stage he was lost. His management skills in running his own campaign illustrate that. The only reason that he is where he is is because of the ineptness of the other republicans.

    Please don’t try to tell me that he hasn’t been associated with a few sleaze balls as have the Clintons. His decision making has been shaky while Bill’s has been pretty good in political and social issues. Shaky when it comes to messing with women. The argument of association goes out the window on that basis.

    Experience is valuable but good judgment trumps it everytime. I am a democrat and it didn’t matter to me whether Obama won or Hillary won. I was voting for a democrat to get us out of the mess we are in. McCain will sink all boats but those that are traveling in yachts.

  142. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 22, 2008 @ 8:48 pm


    Experience matters a whole lot when you are the most powerful man in the world, and that is part of the job title of President of the United States. Obama is little more than an arrogant snot. He is completely inexperienced, he loves to talk, and uses both sides of his mouth. He is lost when people ask him hard questions; he stutters and stumbles and gives conflicting answers, sometimes in just 24 hours, as he did when he told a large group of Jewish Americans that Jerusalem should remain undivided and then reversed himself the very next day. Furthermore, he is a liar. If you watch the youtubes videos of his statements about Iraq and the surge just a few short months ago, and compare them to today, today he denies ever having said that he opposed the surge. That won’t do.

    And he surrounds himself with certifiable nutjobs and bigots (Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, William Ayers, the MoveOn crowd).

    On top of all of that, you are making the assumption that the world in six months or in two years will look like it does today. It may not. It may look like September 11th 2001, for instance. Obama would be in so far over his head that I don’t think we could dig deep enough to find him.

    I preferred Hillary but I can live with McCain. Obama is just out of the question.

    – Aggie

  143. T said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 11:57 am

    Aggie I am so very sorry that you feel this way and I respect that you have the right to fight, vote and do whatever you wish. But please, please, please stop intimating that you speak for women! You certainly do not! I am a woman and proud member of every single feminist group that I can find and I support Barack Obama. I respect your right to support Hillary Clinton and I’m not going to insult or belittle you but rather I will choose to disagree with your reasons as I do not find them factual. What I do find factual is that many times when someone disagrees with you, you then label as a misogynist. Am I misogymist? And please do not accuse me of being a true feminist. I know what side my bread is buttered and I will make darn sure that the man who vehementy opposed all womens issues will never be president and that man is John McCain. This is a man who has voted against every major womens issue inititative that has ever been presented to him. So any woman who calls herself a democrat and votes McCain must be out of their minds.

    Moving along to another topic which is that the DNC “stole” the election from Hillary Clinton. Can you perhaps prove that? I mean prove as it facts not feelings. Can we agree that whether you approve of it or not a primary is won by delegates? Based on that Barack Obama won the primary. Popular vote (which is still under debate) does not a nominee make.

    Now to my last point being that after you “punish” the DNC and teach them a lesson by giving all us McCain you can move on to the next election and finally Hillary will get her due.

    That is a mad, mad, truly mad concept. I generally don’t make any predictions but I predict that in order for Hillary Clinton to be a viable nominee in the future she would need Obama to win and have a successful tenure in office. Why you say? First you assume that everyone loves Hillary Clinton. I would say that half the Democratic party does and half does not. Just as you clearly loathe Obama I suspect there are many who feel the same way about Hillary. So lets say that McCain wins the election and has one term which is unsuccessfull or even two terms. Your assuming that automatically by that time Hillary will just get the nomination. That is quite an assumption. A lot can happen in that amount of time.

    Let’s assume Obama wins and has an unsuccesful term. That means the next President may not be a dem. Let’s say he has a successful two-terms. Who will be the next nominee… the VP. It’s always the VP unless they don’t want to run! Not Hillary unless she is Obama’s VP. The party will push the encumbent VP to be POTUS.

    My last point and then you can say as you will. Remember the karma is a funny thing. You seem to feel as if there are not an equal amount of Obama supporters out there. The fact is that he originally had an equal amount of supporters. The fact is that many of HRC supporters, though they wish it was her, have moved to Obama’s side because they feel that it is the right thing to do. PUMA’s are a small group. My point about karma. Obama’s supporters will remember you and your movment and perhaps punish HRC if her time comes. Not because HRC deserves it (and she does not) but because of people such as yourself. Just as there are supporters of HRC that are vindictive there will be Obama supporters who are vindictive when the time comes.

  144. Oh man said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

    I just realized something… Aggie is playing a game with all of us and laughing all day long. She is not a Dem, a feminist or a PUMA (though she did indicate she was not a PUMA). I’m not even clear if she is a women. But I’m pretty clear she is a conservative.

    Please note the use of the following words or people

    – appeasement (conservative Repub code word for the “evil guys are comin to get ya)
    – Reverand Wright
    – William Ayers

    That is just three examples of why Aggie is not a Dem or even a moderate. So people. Stop talking to her. She is just yanking your chains.

  145. David said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 12:30 pm

    This is ridiculous. She lost fair and square. Even if you gave her 100% of Michigan and Florida, she still lost. I think it is a complete insult to Hillary that you fools keep spinning your wheels thinking of ways to post-facto alter reality. You keep playing with numbers that straight-up aren’t there. You paint a picture of the media that singles out her above all people, ignoring the scrutiny placed upon others as well. You flat out ignore the fact that she spent way too much money trying to compete and ended up making herself a huge deficit.

    She had a great run. Hillary did a good job, but the majority of voters thought we needed someone different. You can’t ignore caucus voters no matter how much you wish you could. Sure, take out the caucus voters and she has more votes. Add them in and she doesn’t. Simple math.

    And if your only reason to vote for McCain is out of spite, seriously you all need to have your heads examined. Give me 1 reason John McCain will be a good president. One!!!! Face it, he’s George Bush part III. Remember when the wire taps were happening? How about the torture in Abu-Gharib? What about the Hurricane Katrina disaster? Where was Johnny boy? Right next to Bush, defending his policies and helping him to deflect any personal liability for any of it. Straight shooter my ass.

    Can we really afford 4 years of John? No.

    You know your health care premium? The one that gets taken out of your check before taxes? Well, prepare to pay tax on that. Its all about personal responsibility – AKA higher healthcare costs. “You’ve got to shop around and stop being lazy.” Meanwhile the healthcare companies get tax breaks to RAISE your rates. Not once has he talked about how high the rates have jumped and how much of a burden it is to average americans.

    How about Iraq? Don’t tell me you think John McCain will get us out of Iraq. If you honestly think that, please send me some of what you’re smoking. I could use a good buzz.

    Even Mitt Romney criticized him on his poor understanding of economics. I guess if you always wanted to know what it was like to live in the early 1930’s, John McCain is your man.

    Vote with your wallet people, not with your hearts. I know you all have a serious boner for Hillary, but she is not the nominee. Don’t turn the gun around and shoot yourselves by voting Republican to teach the party a lesson. And if you do Vote for McCain and he wins, NO COMPLAINING ABOUT HIM OR HOW BAD A JOB HE DOES. HE IS IN THERE BECAUSE OF YOU!!!

    If McCain ever wins over the Evangelicals, it is plain up over. Eight more years of Republican policy. Were just lucky Huckabee lost the nomination.

  146. Tim Young said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 1:27 pm

    Incase your movement should work (will it shall not), i would like to thank you in advance for sending our trops back into battle. For empowering republicans and for validating what i have thought for a long time. Dems cant win an election for squat!!! Last election all you had to do was tell America look what bush has done and it would have been a done deal. Still could not win under those conditions. Go ahead and give the whote house to a war mongerer. You are the best Republican campaign machine that could ever be bought. And thats why we will have a republican in office. Once again thanks for killing our sons and daughters.

  147. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

    This is a great blog. Yes, I was a registered Democrat for 34 years. Voted Republican for President once to oust Carter. This will be my second time, to ensure another idiot doesn’t get elected. I will declare myself a PUMA and I will vote for John McCain and I will tell you my reasons why. (by the way, PUMAs are not just women. I seem to see some sexist-type remarks regarding that here) Yes, I am angry about the media treatment of HRC and I believe we can mostly blame Oprah for that. (go ahead and laugh, I’ve been around long enough to know that things happen pretty much the way they look – no matter how ridiculous it might sound. In fact, that is EXACTLY what deceitful folks count on; your own good will can’t allow you to believe someone would be so calculating.) Yes, I believe she was the best candidate for President. A surprising side-note, I heard Jay Severin and Karl Rove BOTH also thought she was the best Presidential candidate. (lol) Yes, B.O. is totally unqualified for this position. I might have been HAPPY to vote for him in 8 years. If I had been given the opportunity to see him gain experience and knowledge in a Vice-Presidential role. But, he preempted himself and pushed his way into this election. That was when I first questioned his judgement. Now that I have learned of his other dubious affiliations, his embarrassing voting records, and strong-arm chicago politics I am convinced, he lacks good judgement. Now, regarding Senator McCain. We have a Dem majority in the Congress to temper his Conservative leanings. The Roe v. Wade – women’s rights issue is a typical Demo smoke-screen. I know, I’ve used it. Republicans aren’t neanderthals. I’ve been married to one for 26 years. These are all excuses that the B.O. lovers use to try to convince us that what we SAW and HEARD and WITNESSED throughout the Democratic primaries DIDN’T happen. WELL IT DID. WE KNOW IT, YOU KNOW IT, THE WORLD KNOWS ITand IF THE SITUATION WAS REVERSED YOU WOULD BE AS ANGRY AS WE ARE. Although the B.O. lovers and the Democreeps would like you to bow down to the great King Obama they have anointed and appointed, the last time I checked this is still a Democracy. John McCain will not step into the Presidency and destroy women’s rights. oops. And another side-note. Have the B.O. lovers been listening to their candidate lately? You say you are worried that Sen. McCain would continue the war. Hmmmmm. Seems B.O. has stepped in line with that and NOW he wants to REDEPLOY (what’s THAT word?)troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Doesn’t sound like they’ll be coming home any time soon. GROW UP, WAKE UP. THE KING ISN’T WEARING ANY CLOTHES.

  148. Roy said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 3:34 pm

    What a bunch of crybaby losers you all are! The acronym PUMA is clear evidence of that! What a joke. The number of your members will be so small and insignificant; your votes won’t make a difference anyway. For this little group of whiners to sabotage your own Political Party is absurd and mindless. For what? In an attempt to bring Hillary into the White House? With Bill right behind her? Do you not remember that Clinton was impeached on national TV for his blatant, disgusting infidelities IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHILE HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER WAS THERE? That was such a great embarrassment that I couldn’t even stomach to watch it all…and I voted for him! Yeah, now your true colors are really showing. And it’s not all about Hillary ‘not getting a fare shake’ and your members know it! It’s about Senator Barack Obama being an intelligent, scholarly, constitutional law professor, a fresh face on the political scene who will bring positive change (which he has done already more than any other elected official in history), and it’s about him being black…and that’s what your phony members cannot stand! Now I am starting to realize how much some people don’t want to change! Even the conservatives are following Senator Obama’s lead and talking to dictators and there staffs (i.e., Iraq)! And the icing on the cake is the way he is being received overseas ‘like a Rock Star’ because of Bush’s unwillingness to cooperate with his own allies! And it was McCain who suggested he go to Iraq! People overseas hate America because of Bush (and I know because I’ve been everywhere overseas). Now McCain has egg in his face along with Bush. But don’t worry folks, in November; you will be witness to the massive win, the landslide, the very mandate created by the American people for ‘Change’ for the new leader of the United Stated, President Barack Obama! Face it folks. The Clinton dynasty of shame and scandal is dead! And Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States of America and a complete embarrassment to the world! Not to mention McCain and his constant blubbering and misstating of common facts! PUMA should really stand for; People Using Mindless Allegations! God bless America!

  149. JoseyJo said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 4:26 pm

    A junior senator , with no significant accomplishments nor any record to look at, (never published anything, no Illinois records. No Univ transcripts, no birth certificate) who has come up w/ Pay to Play of the Chicago Combine and a man who has forever tarnished the name of three of America’s finest citizens,the Clintons, by his campaign playing the race card continually…
    is not my worthy of my vote.
    He was aided and abetted by the DNC when the May31 rules committee went behind closed doors, conducted a secret ballot, breaking their own sunshine rules to select Obama. Myself and lots of others watched very closely and we noted those democrats who facilitated this fiasco. We noted who was trying to push Hillary out for over half the Primary, too.Senators and governors who told Hillary to get out and to quit.
    Not only will Obama not get my vote, I am going to vote down ticket accordingly. Anyone who worked to commit this fraud upon the voters will have to pay in the voting booth.

    I have worked for the Democrats in many local, state and national elections, making calls, knocking on doors,marched for equal rights,voted dem for 36 years and will NOT be voting for the DEM nominee this November unless that person is Hillary Clinton.
    No one is more qualified. No one has the accomplishments that she does.
    She is the one.

  150. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

    There you go again Roy. Calling anyone who questions that man’s credentials a “racist”. Nevermind he attended a racist, unAmerican, intolerant church for 22 years. nevermind that EVERY election he won, he won by being uncontested. And Roy, do you know how he pulled that off?? By getting his good buddy, the CONVICTED DOMESTIC TERRORIST, William Ayers to pull in a bunch of college kids and had them question EVERY name on the petitions of the other candidates who wanted to be on the ballots and had them all disqualified so he would run UNOPPOSED. He even pulled this flim flam on the BLACK woman who was an IL state senator and campaigned for him and supported him and he threw her under the bus! This hasn’t got a THING to do with him CALLING HIMSELF BLACK. LAST TIME I CHECKED HE’S STILL HALF WHITE. Abandoned by a black father as a toddler, raised by his WHITE mother and WHITE grandparents. Born of a WHITE woman.So…do you think he put himself down as Caucasian on his Harvard application? I think not. Who’s playing the RACE card here? REALLY. That man has no morals, scruples, or backbone. You have NO IDEA what kind of psychotic megalomaniac that man is. He will destroy this country.

  151. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 5:58 pm

    One more thing, Roy. 1.9 million PUMAS and counting.

  152. Joe said,

    July 23, 2008 @ 6:13 pm

    I will write in Hillary and that is it she got screwed. Pennsylvania no Black man for me

  153. Kris said,

    July 24, 2008 @ 4:52 pm

    Bloodthirsty Liberal? What a pathetic name.

    Vote for McCane. He´s about your speed. I mean, what with the thirst for blood and all. Go for it. We don´t need you for Obama to win the WH.

    And you can thank yourselves from here on in for every person killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. For every dollar spent on the wars. For every person who has no health care. For all the people who lose their jobs or can´t find one. You can pat yourselves on the back and say, hell, my personal rage was a great thing. Very productive. I finally found a way to vent it. I found my victims.

    It´s people like you who make the US a fucked-up country. Traitors to Liberals is what you are, as well as a confused lot with some huge emotional issues still to deal with. For decades in most cases. Maaaany decades…

    Moderate me out if you will, but you already read it anyway. So, mission accomplished.

    And, while you´re at it, publish a list of the PUMA´s real names. You have such a strong common identity amongst yourselves.

    Why not share your individual ones with the rest of us? The Real Democrats.

  154. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 24, 2008 @ 7:40 pm


    Couple of things: 1. Obama’s current statements (as opposed to what he said when he was running in the primaries) are identical to George W. Bush. Actually, he’s even more of a war monger. He wants to add troops to Afghanistan and he wants to invade Iraq.

    2. We have noticed the hostile, rude, condescending, snarling tone of emails from typical Obama supporters, such as yourself. We think it is great. We hope you continue to offend everyone who disagrees with you, because in so doing, you help your guy to lose the election.

    Have a nice day. :)

    – Aggie

  155. Kris said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 4:08 am

    Dear Aggie…

    Hostile, rude, condescending and snarling… Hmmmm. There´s the pot calling the kettle black. At least I don´t go around calling myself “bloodthirsty” nor am I being irresponsible, indeed reckless and dangerous, with my right to vote and, therefore, with the future of my fellow countrymen and the rest of the world. These people, for true Liberals, are just as important to us as we, ourselves, are. Never less. That´s the difference between one side and the other. That´s how you can tell us apart.

    It´s interesting to note that you only had one, very weak argument with which to reply to my comment: Obama´s current statements with regards to war. I really thought that you had a substantiated, well-developed list of issues to bring to the table in order to try and justify your ephimerous raison d´être. After all, insanity can be quite creative at times.

    Smells like you guys all found the excuse you needed to discredit Obama. Ipso facto, of course. During the primaries you supported Hillary because of her gender, not her agenda, because, obviously, if you are truly liberals, you would support the candidate whose ideas and ideals are most similar to hers… If it just weren´t for that messy Rage Factor and existential frustration that so clouds your thinking…

    A lot of the posts on this site even say “Hey, I´m voting for McCain… He´s a war heroe.” Wow. Hope nobody decides to poke him with a bamboo rod at some point and we get a messy flashback/meltdown, red button included.

    You have NO good reasons at all to do what you are doing, and it is absurdly obvious. In fact, you are really a bunch of conservatives in liberal wool. Bet you have a Che Guevara t-shirt that you don on occasion in order to seem really socially-conscious and hip. Now´s the time to give it to somebody who really does justice to it.

    I have never liked Hillary. I didn´t like her before the primaries and I like her even less after them. Still, I would have voted for her hands down in the same way that I voted for Kerry against Bush. But, then again, I consider myself to be a happy, satisfied person. If, at some point, I stopped feeling that way, I would seek professional help and never try to make an entire electorate, a nation, a world, pay for what´s wrong in me.

    And yes, I will have a nice day. A very nice one, thank you. Because I can live with myself.

  156. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 7:10 am


    Since you’re a newbie, I’ll quickly go over just a few of the reasons that I won’t be voting for Barack Obama.

    William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Iraq, Iran, FISA, DNC rules violations (if people from Michigan and Florida are Half-A-Person, then the same should hold true for the other three states that held their primaries too early), refusing to keep his promise on public money, sexism, the arrogance and snottiness of his base, and his woeful inexperience. This is an incomplete list, of course, but it covers a lot of territory. We have ethics, core values, judgment, lying to his base about so many things, and basic kumbaya rhetoric that means nothing. In fact, when I listen to the nonsense he’s come up with over the past year or so (and there’s lots of it; he loves to talk!), I haven’t got a clue who this guy is.

    The most recent outrage? He can be viewed on youtube this week stating that he is a member of the Senate Banking Committee and voted to impose additional sanctions on Iran. He was talking about his great love of Israel. Guess what, Kris? Can you find the lie(s) here? Well, google Obama Senate Committees and a list will pop up. He Isn’t On The Banking Committee. He is a liar. He knew he wasn’t on the committee and didn’t vote on that. Or was he just so tired that he wished he was on the banking committee and had made that vote? I’ll take McCain any day. The LA Times covered it, if you’re interested.

    So – go ahead and tell the PUMAs and others on this board that we are reckless and dangerous and make whatever sneering comments you wish. Obama probably will win, but we will all have to endure the consequences. And not one of us can even guess what those will be. Obama is beyond slippery, more than just a flip-flopper. Reverend Wright underestimated him when he called him “a politician”. He is like a sub-atomic particle with the peculiar ability to be in more than one place at a time and to assume more than one identity at a given moment. So who is he, Kris? Is he kumbaya-boy with the soaring rhetoric of the primaries or is he GW Bush on steriods with his plans to invade Pakistan? You are arrogant enough to believe that you know. I am not so sure.

    – Aggie

  157. Kris said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 10:46 am

    Hi, Aggie

    Thank you for the elaborated list, and I mean that in a non-facetious way. It makes you seem much more credible in your endeavours to see Obama not get elected. And I dare say it is quite possible that he does not win in the end. With or without the PUMAS against him.

    This election could easily go either way. So what else is new?! But, above all, it will be close because, tragically, there is still a majority of Americans who think that grappling with the faltering economy, waging two wars, and leaving millions of people bereft of healthcare and civil rights is challenging and fun. Either that or they are above and beyond these issues because they are wealthy and privileged, straight and white.

    Are you really willing to let 5% of the population continue to control the other 95% of us for their own personal gain and archaic moral principles?

    I just do not think that you PUMA´s are liberals at heart. I´m sorry, but I just don´t buy it. Nope. I rather think that you are all really a bunch of conservatives, moderate ones of course, who jumped the GOP ship in order to vote for a woman. You didn´t get what you wanted so you just jump back to the first ship you started from.

    A real liberal would never be capable of doing that. No matter how offended, pissed-off, and ignored they felt in a given situation. They would never have voted for Bush and, by that same token, they could never vote for McCain or abstain at this critical moment in history. My mother really likes Obama a lot, doesn´t really like McCain, but considers herself a Conservative and will vote for the GOP. Conviction is that gnarly.

    And thus the problem that I have with your list is the absolute intrascendence, IMO, of all the issues and third parties you cite as being supposedly important and decisive for liberals: Ayers? Wright? Pfleger?!

    Ayers was 35 years ago, and everyone who has ever been curious and anxious to learn as a youth has had these types of supposedly “dangerous liasons” and brushes with anti-Establishment elements. Wow, in his younger days he had contacts with a self-proclaimed Communist subversive and terrorist… Gives me goose bumps. Especially me, with my Italian Communist father-in-law at the dinner table every night talking about his world views and how satisfying it was for him to be there when they hung Mussolini in public and how evil fascism is. He´s as “red” and as much of an anarquist as they come, but he is also a very nice, kind and gentle man who believes in the ideal of a better world going by that route. So we forgive him, right? Or, in the name of Capitalism and the Stars and Stripes, should I get his 85-year-old butt back to Milan? Even my parents, huge Bush supporters, love my father-in-law and think he has some good points.

    Come on, Aggie! By that rule of thumb, while Ayers was busy trying to assemble bombs in a basement somewhere, Bush was getting shit-faced (and well into his adult years he continued to do so), McCain was chasing a blonde millionaire around a table while his crippled wife sat at home waiting in a wheelchair, and, only just recently in my chronology of Past Sins and Who Committed Them, Cindy McCain was a junkie and stole from a charity. Oh, almost forgot: Laura Bush killed someone while drunk driving as a teenager…

    What´s to make us think that anyone won´t still fall back on past habits? But, above all, why do we even care? Who could really throw the first stone? Not me, that´s for sure. Nor you, nor anyone. Unless you were a novice locked away in a convent during your first 25 years of life.

    Did you actually give creedence to all the sound bytes you heard on cable news, or did you watch the entire video of Wright´s sermons? I did. I´m not going to go there because I don´t think you´re interested, but I sincerely believe that Wright was right. The US is responsible for 9/11. Entirely responsible. We had it coming. Yes, we did. And the Truth hurts. Badly.

    Pfleger was just defending a friend and colleague, which is infinitely better than betraying one. And even Obama, himself, wouldn´t have turned his back on Trinity or Wright, either, but the public and media obligated him to do so in the end. But I guess when you call yourself Barack Hussein Obama you´re damned if you do and if you don´t.

    Iran and Iraq? Do you really believe that a President McCain is going to do much for World Peace, Foreign Relations and a solution for these two hotspots? Hell no. Obama has adapted his rhetoric lately in order to win support from moderates because he knows that he has true liberals in the bag. Even those who don´t care for him particularly have enough common sense to know that, with McCain, we KNOW a priori what we are going to get. A big NO to pro-choice, to homosexual rights, to universal health care, to withdrawing the troops, to better sex education and access to birth control mechanisms… and with regards to economics, don´t even get me started. We get a President who says that women have to “make more of an effort to educate themselves” if they want to compete in a Maverick Man´s world. Fancy that. It´s enough to want to punch him in the face on behalf of women everywhere.

    So Obama is a chameleon. He says what he needs to say in order to get a vote. What a fucking surprise. And I thought that he was Jesus Christ Almighty come down off the cross in order to save us from our sins. Again… Don´t I feel stupid and gullible…

    Dearest Aggie, between you and I, we don´t know a damn thing. A vote is a shot in the dark. It´s a faith issue. We believe because we have nothing empirical to go by when we vote someone who is not the incumbent President. And experience? Heck, Bush had tons and what did that do?

    What we do know fairly well is that all politicians make “misstatements”.
    That´s the euphemism they all use, and I mean all of them, for what we common folk call a dirty lie. Obama is not above them. None of “them” are. In fact, I mistrust a person just for the very fact that they have decided to dedicate their lives to politics. After all, if they really wanted to serve their fellow citizens, there are a lot of non-political ways to go about doing this. Anonymously and with no perspective of personal gain beyond the simple satisfaction that vocation renders to one. Wright was right again. Obama is a politician. No worse and no better than that.

    I don´t consider myself to be arrogant, although we all seem this way to each other now. I am just concerned about the state of the nation and tired of the lack of attention and priority given to the majority of Americans with regards to basic issues such as health care, homosexual rights such as marriage and adoption (which I loved Hillary´s outspoken defense of, by the way), and the immense and ever-increasing margin between the haves and the have nots.

    I am not so sure that the next President, be he Obama or McCain, will be able to resolve these problems. I don´t even know if, once elected, they will even care. I just know that McCain has already demonstrated, in word and endeavour, that he could give a damn. Obama is the only guy left in the race who maybe, just maybe, really intends to address these issues, pull the troops out of Hell, and dialogue with the Bad Guys. At least give it a shot.

    My father-in-law says the following a lot: “Piú serve un male conosciutto di un bene per conoscere”… which, with great irony intended, means: Which is better, a very familiar bad thing or something potentially good that we just haven´t been exposed to yet? For me, McCain holds no mystery at all and Obama is the chance to maybe reveal something unknown for now but good in the end. Most people resign themselves to preferring the familiar and predictable, even if they hate it already, instead of taking a risk on the unknown. It is fear that dominates us in almost all of our choices, and it bewilders me that a large group of people such as the PUMA´s would knowingly add themselves to the ignorant and dominated masses so gratuitously. Our deal as liberals has always been to differentiate ourselves from the sheep and, above all, the herders. Isn´t that why we studied, travelled, experienced other ways of being, withstood ostracism, got sent away from the dinner table (in my case) and learned to value people who are different from ourselves? Isn´t this why the Conservatives always make fun of us?

    I have no hopes of changing your mind, nor do I wish you luck. I would just feel really bereft and sad to think that 1.9 million PUMAS are making a vital choice based on a list of reasons that goes:

    1. Spite
    2. Spite
    3. Spite
    4. His wife hates America

    If you really feel, instinctively, that Obama will be a disaster, then I respect that. After all, this is all about gut feelings… Yours and mine are just different, it would appear. And, in that case, I will sign off by saying that I thank you for your quick correspondence, your wonderful prose and writing style (which I enjoyed) and not leaving me with the idea that this was a waste of my time. IF YOU ARE GOING BY GUT FEELINGS. Puhleeez promise me that you are doing just that and I will be cool with your group.

    As a person, I hope you take care. The luck, in the end, will have to be wished for us all as a nation.

    Thanks for reading this long thing. Sincerely, Kris

  158. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 11:45 am


    Honestly, it isn’t spite. The PUMAs are just as concerned for the US as you are, but we have come to different conclusions. I’ll write more later, but one thing in particular jumped out at me. Wm. Ayers was not 30+ years ago. He was September12, 2001, when he was photographed stepping on an American flag and busy giving an interview in which he acknowledged participating in violence and terrorism and wishing that he had done it more.

    We are all – all of us – known by the company we keep. If your friends were blowing up people, screaming racial and antisemitic epithets, and openly acknowledging this without shame or remorse, we would think that you are a jerk. I assume that your friends and family do not do stuff like that, right? Well, Obama’s buddies do stuff like that. And he lamely says: “That isn’t the (fill in the blank) that I knew”. It more than strains credulity. And there really is not excuse for it.

    As a thought experiment, imagine walking into church and hearing the priest/pastor scream venom towards any group that you respect. Maybe you don’t like Jews, so the antisemitism doesn’t sting you, but you seem to feel empathy towards gays. Imagine listening to someone scream hatred towards them the way Jeremiah Wright did towards Jews. And then imagine looking around the room at your friends and family as they stamp and laugh and applaud the outburst. Really focus on the image. Take it further. Pretend to be gay (a gay fly on the wall, watching all of this) Feel the total rejection, the hatred pouring out towards yourself. When you find it, when you truly feel this image, you will understand my revulsion.

    – Aggie

  159. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

    Well, Kris is a pretty typical B.O. supporter. She doesn’t accept the facts. She refuses to acknowledge any opinion as valid except her own and would prefer to vote for an unknown entity. Why not just stay home on election day, Kris? Then you won’t have to commit to anything, just like the empty shirt you so ardently support.
    In your own words…”Obama has adapted his rhetoric lately in order to win support from moderates because he knows that he has true liberals in the bag.” I LOVE the “adapted his rhetoric” BS. In English, we call that flip-flopping, not “adapting his rhetoric”. What a crock. I have to admit that I am continuously amazed at the scope of this mass-hypnosis that man has been able to pull off. Of course, I know a little bit about hypnosis and it is a fact that the higher a person’s IQ is, the harder it becomes, if not impossible, to hypnotize them. Hmmmm. I see a pattern here.
    I also love your remark, “Obama is the only guy left in the race who maybe, just maybe, really intends to address these issues, pull the troops out of Hell, and dialogue with the Bad Guys”. In case you haven’t been listening to your Savior lately….he wants to “redeploy” the troops to Pakistan and Afghanistan and now he’s trying to recruit Germans and other European countries to get back into it. The Germans, I am happy to say, are at least quite skeptical. The last time they bought into a slick-talking guy who liked to perform in front of monuments and big crowds they elected Adolf. So I don’t think they’re liking this image to much. I sure as hell am not. OH! And what’s up with him traveling overseas on the Senate’s money to CAMPAIGN? Seriously, he has no shame. Kris, you reallly should think twice. This man is dangerous. My grandfather also had a saying. “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” That’s what you are buying into. An inexperienced, megalomaniac. Giving Presidential power to that man is going to throw our country into a depression and obliterate the middle class. Mark My Words. Meet me back here in 2 years after McCain gets elected adn we’ll see how we’re doing. You won’t be able to meet me back here in 2 years in B.O. gets elected because we’ll all be too busy working in the factories for the Saudis.

  160. Kris said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

    I prefer to speak to Aggie because she is nicer.

    What was that about being hypnotized with a high IQ? Nice try, but, as a snake charmer, you would get bitten the first day on the job. And by the stupidest snake.

  161. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 2:23 pm


    You said a mouthful there – Everyone prefers to have conversations with people who are nice to them, given that “nice” really means respectful.

    If I were advising Obama, which is a funny thought, I’d suggest to him that he teach his legions of young people basic manners. It is infuriating to be called stupid and malevolent again and again, simply because we disagree. I am starting to understand how truly conservative people must feel. Bush is not stupid. This is evident today because the Messiah Himself – Obama – is coming closer and closer to his foreign policy positions. Except that Obama wants to invade Pakistan. PUMAs are also not stupid. No matter how “right” the Obama supporters experience themselves, no matter how sure they feel inside their guts of their own opinions, they are only opinions. There is one thing we know for sure about opinions: like rectums, we all have them.

    – Aggie

  162. Kris said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 4:05 pm

    Is the coast clear, Aggie? Whew… I can´t deal with people jumping all over me today and calling me stupid and easily hypnotizable. Not to mention questioning my command of the English language. I won´t even bother showing my credentials in that respect. It ain´t worth my time.

    The very idea that some announce an Obama presidency as a sure way to be doing slave work in the Saudi Arabian oilfields is just too Orwellian for me… Not to mention that it speaks in not-so-eloquent terms with regards to their grasp of fact.

    So what is the fear? What is this terrible thing that he is going to do? Sell us to the Muslims because he is one? Geez Luiz. Even if he were, that doesn´t make him evil or less capable of being a good President. Do we have to hate all Muslims to be good Americans? If that´s the case, I´m out of here now. There are some lines I´m just not willing to cross.

    In synthesis: I happen to believe that you have been honest on this site when expressing your own ideology and origins. A very conservative Liberal or a very liberal Conservative. (Someone show me where to draw the line!) I. therefore, resist all I can when it comes down to believing whether or not this is just some kind of a Republican ploy in order to create dissention among Dems. In the hopes that some naïve soul will jump on the bandwagon and really vote for McCain instead of for whom his better conscious would oblige him to support. I don´t believe that´s the case, Aggie, but, above all, I don´t believe it would work anyway. As I say, conviction is a gnarly thing.

    Still in all, this is an issue matter. If you feel that Obama is too liberal for your own tastes (and I am addressing myself to any and all who may read this), that´s fine. I can deal with that. But, at some point, I would like a PUMA to define their idea of a great society. What would it include? Who would it benefit?

    My brother voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. He said, “hey, I know there aren´t any WMD´s. There is no real reason to go after Saddam, that´s just a story they tell the stupid people. I make more money with a Republican in the WH and that´s why I´m voting for Bush”.

    Clear-headed and with good arguments in hand. Each in his own interests, if you will. What I can´t accept is the wielding of distorted cable news stories, speculation with regards to Obama´s personal documents, his guilt-by-association and just plain, old-fashioned American invention and innovation.

    I wrote another lengthy comment which I could not upload, but it was cathartic for me, so I´m happy.

    There is no need for name calling, although both tribes are furious at each other and it is difficult to maintain courteousness when insulted. I can jump the gun, but react positively when I feel that there is a reasonable person on the other end.

    As I said, no snake charmers, please. No snakes here. Just a person who thinks that they are right on this, but has the same non-existent way of measuring the correctness of my hunches until Obama were President for a few years. Those who want Obama to lose don´t have a divine light shining on them or a crystal ball, either, so the insults as to our respective intellectual capacities, to and fro, to and fro, are just plain gratuitous and mean. Crazy people always think that everyone else is, and it will be a matter of time, and only time, until we find out who is really delusional.

    He sounds a lot like Bush? No. I think he is just expressing a possible future line of action that he would be willing to take if unconditional and exhaustive talks with the Enemy/ies… (How many do we have now?) don´t achieve the results that he happens to think they will. And maybe it will be effective. If I smacked my husband right off the bat, I bet he would smack me back. But no, we don´t do that. We gruff, walk off, and are silent for however long the grievance would appear to merit (maximum 3 days) and then we sit down and talk.

    In any case, attacking Obama as a war-monger (the latest of his supposed sins) and than voting for McCain is just a little too incongruent for my way of thinking.

    I think it all boils down to fear of discovering that the DNC “selected”, to use PUMA term and perspective, the right candidate of the two. Given the moment and the whole Clinton history. That´s what PUMA´s can´t stand and tremble to think. Those who are inclined to tremble, at any rate, which seem like a scanty minority among your ranks.

    Hillary would have been so much better without Bill. It´s a shame she didn´t divorce him way back when and then run for President. I would have voted for her out of pure respect and “good for you” admiration. For all Obama´s shine, I would have been drawn to Hillary´s forcefulness.

    At any rate, things being the way they are, I can only hope that the country gets turned around soon by someone. We all agree to disagree, but one thing we can also agree on is that we are in a very bad way.

    And Bush was not dumb. He was smart. Imagine manipulating millions of people. Now compare to Hitler, Lookbeneaththesurface.

    Talk to you soon, Aggie. Have a great day.

  163. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 6:33 pm

    OK Kris, so you’re completely missing my point . this is more of the same Obama (you must be a racist, biggot, pick whatever the current bad name is out there to call non-Obama people today) campaign tactic they’ve been using all along. You said, “So what is the fear? What is this terrible thing that he is going to do? Sell us to the Muslims because he is one? Geez Luiz. Even if he were, that doesn´t make him evil or less capable of being a good President. Do we have to hate all Muslims to be good Americans? If that´s the case, I´m out of here now. There are some lines I´m just not willing to cross”

    I don’t recall saying ANYTHING about a MUSLIM. I said “Saudis” which is a NATIONALITY not a religion. And, you completely missed the point. I’m talking about economics. The Liberals love to make fun of the WSJ (that’s Wall Street Journal) to all you non-financial types. However, they still are one of the world’s top financial newspapers. They have already taken their position on this. If Obama gets elected it is 99.9% Likely that he will raise your taxes. I’m not talking about RICH people only, Kris. B.O. thinks that if a family makes more than 100,000.00 they are RICH. I call that middle class. How about you? When he raises our taxes the country will not go into a recession (we’re already there) it will go into a DEPRESSION. Do you Like soup, Kris? The Saudis and OPEC have our country BY THE BALLS. I don’t care if they’re Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Lutheran or Unitarian. Like it our not, and believe me, as a FORMER Democrat, I don’t like at all, McCain has the best ideas for our economy. He will leave the current tax breaks in place, for you me and everyone else. I WANT the money that I work hard for everyday. I DON’T want it to go to some faith-based program that supports the likes of “Rev.” Wright and “Rev.” Al Sharpton. Did you know the the lovely Rev. Wright got $250,000.00 from Bush’s faith-based initiative program?? And as far as Bush being Hitler, you’re wrong again. That was Rove and Cheney. And yes, It works, but that doesn’t make it right now, does it? Why is OK for Obama to use the same methods?

  164. Kris said,

    July 25, 2008 @ 8:38 pm

    I still think Aggie is nicer, but I am the only Obama supporter on this site right now, so here goes:

    1. The immense majority of “Saudis” practice the Islamic faith. One concept encompasses the other so I caught you on that one. Subtle, but not enough. Maybe it was a Freudian slip so i won´t judge you in the usual terms that we ho-hum Obamaphiles tend to resort to when gauging the moral fiber of

    2. You shouldn´t be centering on pure economics. There are two wars going on and maybe there will be three or four by the time Bush leaves office. It´s just a long shot, but how much of our economic inestability (pardon my Barbarian stretch of the English language) and energy inflation do you think are a direct consequence of these wars? Or has the money wasted there not been in detriment to other areas where Government spending has been put on hold? Research, development of new technology and education. Incentives to business people. Help for people in foreclosure… New job creation. I´m no economist, but I dare say that if you spend waaaay too much on clothes, you have nothing left for food or rent or vacations or a birthday present for your mom. Logical, right?

    3. This Rage Against Obama Machine was created long before he opened his mouth in favor of Faith-Based Programs. Don´t use events of late as arguments to justify a hatred that goes way back before these ideas were ever uttered by Obama. It sounds like a gleeful “see, I told you!” It doesn´t explain your original formation as a political group or what in the hell you stand for. Although, as far as I can tell, you are all really just a bunch of Republicans who disguised themselves as Democrats, just like Hillary did years ago. in order to vote for a woman. And that is cool. Especially because it means that, had there been two men as candidates for the Democratic Nomination, you would have voted for McCain or Romney or even Huckabee from Day One. No base lost with you people. The very idea that you would be willing to vote for McCain means that it doesn´t hurt you. It´s no sacrifice on your part. If it were, I guarantee hands down that you wouldn´t do it.

    4. Regardless of their annual income, everybody who voted for Bush should be made to pay more taxes for the mess they got us into. Which should about nail everyone over that amount with very few exceptions at the 100 grand a year cut. I find myself in the 100,000 + bracket and don´t mind at all, as long as the cash doesn´t get dumped into another bloodfest in some desert. Obama´s economic proposals are reasonable and progressive. McCain doesn´t know jack about economy and will only continue to use the same measures and programs that Bush used. With the same results.

    5. Bush isn´t Hitler, but Rove and Cheney are? What!? Bush chose Cheney as his running mate. Cheney and Rove are more like Goebbels. And Bush is responsible for everything that they did. He is the Commander in Chief. And he should be tried as the criminal that he is.

    6. What “methods” is Obama using? Torture of POW´s, sacrifice of young people and Iraquis and Afghans in a personal war, passing unconstitutional measures, depriving us of our basic civil rights and spying on us? Inventing WMD´s, denying the UN, and generally being a sick, twisted pig? It´s funny how the buzz word amongst the PUMA´s when referring to Obama is megalomaniac. That is precisely what Bush is.

    I asked for your concept of a great society and you´ve described it: it´s one in which your take-home is the maximum possible. That´s your priority, your concern, and your perogative. Fuck poor people. Always whining and complaining. Why don´t they get a job?

    But that is not, nor has it ever been or will it be a Democrat´s idea of a great society. Why call yourselves Democrats, ex-democrats, or Liberals to begin with? It´s downright offensive and smacks of conspiracy. It has filth and Rovian tactic written all over it. Democrats aren´t dumb. We´re just concerned about people who are vulnerable and unprotected. But we can see through this ruse perfectly.

    Go ahead and vote for the Grotesque Onerous Poobahs. You were going to do that anyway until Hillary announced her candidacy. As I said, we don´t need the PUMA´s to win. Maybe if you´re really, really kind… give to charity, plant trees and visit people who are old, ailing and dying, you will be reincarnated as a Democrat in the next life. Enjoy the material wealth in this one in the meantime. Lord knows you´ve earned the right. You just lack the reason.

  165. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 26, 2008 @ 9:02 am


    A couple of things to keep in mind:

    If you read into history, you’ll notice that there are always millennial movements and general nuttiness. Think about people giving away their wealth, climbing the nearest hills, and waiting to be taken directly to heaven by Jesus himself. Remember the Roaring Twenties? Or the internet bubble? At the time, all of these things were real and people believed in them as sincerely as Obama supporters believe in their guy. We look back and marvel at the innocence today. None of this is new to your generation, trust me.

    Obama is merely a politician. He’s damn good at that. I just don’t happen to believe that he is a leader. In July of 2007, he said that he wanted to get out of Iraq, even if there was a genocide. Even if there was a genocide. Think about that. He has no core values to guide him, in my opinion.

    Another thing to chew over: Conservatives also have concern and compassion for the poor. The way that they try to solve problems differs, but the goals are similar. For example, President Bush has put more money into helping with AIDS in Africa than Clinton did – way more, adjusted for today’s dollars. Talk is very cheap. On a smaller scale, I’ve known many conservative people who have worked hard to help their neighbors and their communities. Back to a large scale, we can look at the successes and failures of the social programs since the ’60’s. Some have worked better than others. A respectable argument can be made that some of those programs have injured the people that they sought to help. Clinton certainly thought so when he adopted the Republican plan to cut back on welfare.

    I don’t think that being an ideologue is the way to go. I would prefer to look at situations as they pop up, study the trends, and make the best choice that we can at the time. Some choices will prove to be wiser than others in hindsight. The surge was right, in hindsight.

    Going into Afghanistan and freeing half the population from spending their lives stumbling beneath the shroud of the burkha was another correct decision. It was a brilliant stroke for human rights and women’s rights. Eventually history will evaluate the nuttiness of our era. Will it really equate Bush and Cheney with Hitler? I doubt it.

    – Aggie

  166. Gina said,

    July 27, 2008 @ 6:29 pm


    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
    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.

  167. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    July 29, 2008 @ 2:07 pm

    Well said, Gina.

    Kris, you’re kidding, right? You said, Regardless of their annual income, everybody who voted for Bush should be made to pay more taxes for the mess they got us into. Which should about nail everyone over that amount with very few exceptions at the 100 grand a year cut.
    Now, how will OPRAH feel about that and all the hollywood politicos who’ve been campaigned for BO?

    you also said – I asked for your concept of a great society and you´ve described it: it´s one in which your take-home is the maximum possible. That´s your priority, your concern, and your perogative. Fuck poor people. Always whining and complaining. Why don´t they get a job?

    There you go again, putting words in my mouth. You don’t know JACK about me but you sure feel you can judge me. I give plenty to charities, but I CHOOSE which one’s to contribute to. How much did you send the Red Cross for Katrina or the Tsunami in the south Pacific? How many years have you volunteered at your local Cerebral Palsey center? Run food drives or worked in soup kitchens? How often do you volunteer at your child’s school? Your self-righteousness is typical of the new generation of Obama Democrats. Better than you and Holier-than-thou. I have no problem helping people in need, children with disabilities, seniors who need assistance. I don’t like helping those who want a handout, who are “working the system”. People who are physically able to work but choose to live off the state because they are LAZY.
    And finally, nothing Kris has said here has swayed my opinion of B.O. or his legions. I will NEVER vote for him.

  168. Kris said,

    July 29, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

    Ho hum. Yawn

  169. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    July 30, 2008 @ 8:56 am

    Kris may be too bored to continue the discussion here, but s/he has plenty to say behind your backs, PUMAs:

    P.athetic U.ptight M.eaningless A.ssholes

    bloodthirstyliberal.com — Here are the “Democrats” that we are losing from the base. Fiscally conservative? Like to make fun of homosexuals? Think that Afroamericans have AIDS because they are too poor or lazy to buy condoms? Wanted Hillary to win but identify with McCain? Then join PUMA. (For those who just gotta smell that sour milk before they throw out the carton).

    I don’t mind being tarred by the liberal/fascist brush. It’s why I fled from liberalism, and why I started blogging to share my observations and experiences. But the rest of you? Is Kris really your soulmate?


  170. Michael said,

    July 31, 2008 @ 11:24 pm

    Kris, I’ll vote for you if you run. It has been a pleasure to read your comments, God bless you and keep giving them hell. Listen if McCain is good enough for the PUMA’s in 08 he’ll be good enough for me and a lot of Obama supporters in 2012.

  171. Roy said,

    August 2, 2008 @ 11:23 am

    Oh man, I love this! But seriously – all of the talk aside folks, at the end of the campaign and on Election Day…it won’t be Hillary Clinton (please) that will declare the win because she won’t even be on anybody’s ticket. And if you try to write her name in, it’s going to simply void the ballot! Hillary is a divisive, vindictive, polarizing politician with no moral character (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/veepstakes/)! And she isn’t even anywhere close to being Senator Obama’s VP pick because of the childless, infantile acts she and her husband pulled during their campaign (grow-up-folks)! I knew this was going to happen though! People did not and have not forgotten that crap she pulled in her campaign! People aren’t going to forget the current ‘attack campaign’ that McCain is pulling right now either! Senator Obama will be the next President of the United States of America and every one of you bitter PUMA people know it. And if anyone of you maniacs even thinks about hurting him or his family, just remember it’s not just Americans who are watching, it’s the entire world people…the entire world! And yes I know, right now your mindless followers are fuming, seething, and foaming at the mouth in anger but there’s nothing you can do about it except take it (and you might as well enjoy it)! I know it hurts you to your heart (I know it does), but he is going to be the next Commander-in-Chief and Ruler of the Free World…period! Can anyone say, “Hail-to-the Chief?” God bless America!

  172. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 2, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

    False. Write-ins do not void ballets. This person is an idiot, like most Obamabots.

    And he’s paranoid. Who said anything about hurting Obama or his family. We simply will not vote for him.

    – Aggie

  173. Michael said,

    August 2, 2008 @ 6:23 pm

    Hey its your right to vote for who you want, why all this discussion about it, you are not going to change our minds we are not going to change your minds. Lets just wait, vote, and see what happens. The same old tired arguments, Jeremiah Wright, Father Fleghler, unpatriotic, no experience, blah, blah blah ok fine don’t vote for him. Its your vote use it, its none of our business who you vote for. Please find something more constructive to do.

  174. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 2, 2008 @ 8:21 pm


    I enjoy working on this site and many people enjoy reading it and commenting on what we write. Constructive use of one’s time is a very personal matter.

    You think that the fact that Obama’s lifelong contacts are bigots and that he is the most inexperienced serious Presidential candidate ever doesn’t matter? That’s really interesting. If a Republican candidate for President went to a racist church for 20 years and the pastor was screaming invectives against blacks, would you find it boring? I doubt it. Ditto the idea of a Republican who had never held a job and had extremely limited experience in politics. Our arguments bore you because the minute you really think about them, they make you anxious.

    – Aggie

  175. Roy said,

    August 2, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

    To all active ‘PUMA members’, where was all of this energy and coalition-gathering when the Bush/Cheney machine initiated an unconstitutional war against Iraq? Where was all this energy and why were you not fighting to stop the illegal war when not single Weapon of Mass Destruction was found? Tell me something, where was all of this energy and anger when 100’s and 100’s and 1000’s upon 1000’s of our innocent military men and women were getting killed and maimed in Iraq every month for years and years for a war we should have never entered into? WHERE WERE YOU THEN? Why didn’t your loyal party members fight and sign petitions to impeach Bush and Cheney like they impeached Clinton, huh? Why is it that now when the current administrations term is damn near over, that some are only now coming out of the wood work to deliver Articles of Impeachment that will only fall on deaf ears? Your so called PUMA’s are worthless in their cause because your cause is strictly incidental to your personal hurt feelings. Why did you not unite against the egregious and blatantly illegal actions of our current administration and screamed and demanded that they account for their egregious and clearly planned deception of the American people? Well I’ll tell where you were at. You were out taking care of your own personal interests and families. If it didn’t affect you directly, you didn’t care. All you want to do as rightwing conservatives disguised as the democrats that you are is divide your own party for idiotic and selfish reasons. How crude is that? You should be ashamed of yourselves! The blood of our troops is all over you and all you want to do is divide our party for personal, self-serving reasons….shame on you (shame on you all)!

  176. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 3, 2008 @ 7:36 am


    This is beautiful. I am sure that blaming us for the war in Iraq will gather more votes for Obama. No doubt about it.

    Keep it up!

    – Aggie

  177. Roy said,

    August 3, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

    Well Mr. Bloodthirsty Liberal, I didn’t think you were really a “blood thirsty liberal” at all by means of your weak, non-blood thirsty comment! Just what I expected, a weak, hollow comment from a fake democratic, spoiled liberal who is out to satisfy your own selfish needs….gimme-a-break! As a matter of a fact, I am the real ” blood thirsty liberal” that wants to see REAL change in our society, not just the cock-in-bull rhetoric that the phony PUMA group is perpetrating! When you can put together a serious stand supporting your campaigns initiatives…let me know!

  178. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 3, 2008 @ 10:00 pm


    You have confused rudeness with strength; weakness with manners.

    There are millions of Democrats in this country who are not Leftists and who really did not care for the way the primaries went down or the way the Obama supporters behaved then – or now. I can’t speak for them, but speaking for myself, Senator Obama will have to do without my vote.

    – Aggie

  179. Roy said,

    August 4, 2008 @ 8:59 am

    Well Aggie, I think that’s fare. I’ll keep campaigning for my candidate with all of the vigor I have and you can do the same. This will be my last post…see you on election day!

  180. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 4, 2008 @ 10:05 am

    P.S. You mean “fair”. I am always amazed at how much trouble Obama supporters have with simple spelling.

    – Aggie

  181. Michael said,

    August 5, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

    Aggie, Republicans have held the White House for twenty of the last 28 years and the Congress for 12 of the last 16, and look where we are, tell me why I should vote for another Republican, look what the current bozo has gotten us. If the Republican agenda is so great why is the country in such a mess? well I am sure Bush’s base as he calls them (corporate big wigs) I am sure are doing fine, I am sure they don’t have to choose between paying the electric bill or putting gas in the car or buying groceries. I agree Aggie, this is a great forum for sharing views, and kudos again as always for disagreeing without being disagreeable but you can’t sell me this bill of goods, but its good to hear what people are thinking, unfortunately we all cant be as eloquent as Kris. Give ‘em hell Kris

  182. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 6, 2008 @ 7:27 am

    Deep breath Michael.

    Let’s do look at this country over the past 28 years. You want to start in 1980? Ok. In the period leading up to 1981, let’s call that the Carter years, this is what the United States was like if you were not rich. There were gas lines to fill up your tank (even if you were rich), food as a percentage of income was very expensive and people made difficult choices about how to feed the family. The Iranians took over our embassy and kidnapped roughly 400 Americans. Our President responded to these crises by donning a sweater and sitting in the Rose Garden – for 444 days. He had all the rhetoric in the world, but nothing worked. We had a peculiar term for the economic problems back then: Stagflation. That meant wages were stagnant but inflation was rampant. I think that you were brilliant in choosing 1980 as a starting point, because in many ways I think that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter in thought and style. I believe we will return to those years. He was so awful that Ted Kennedy challenged him for the democratic nomination in 1980, but Carter won the nomination and the right to run for a second term. By the way, if you don’t believe me, google him and read more. Wikipedia is a good start. I am speaking here from memory.

    Now, following Carter we had the Reagan years. Reagan was able to win easily by creating The Misery Index. The misery index is the combination of unemployment and inflation. It still exists. It is nowhere near as high today as it was back then. Some of the Reagan ads featured moms trying to make the remnants of a jar of peanut butter last for one more sandwich. I was a liberal back then, and voted for Carter twice, but those ads were the truth. In fact, the changes that occurred during the Reagan years brought the biggest shift in American voter preference in my lifetime. Many, many young adults became Republicans because he did fix the economy and resolve the crisis in Iran. These people were called “Reagan Democrats”. (I think that if Obama wins, we’ll have a new generation of Republicans after he finishes Carterizing our economy).

    In the years since 1980, we’ve seen tremendous economic growth and wealth across the board. This is why many more people own homes (mortage rate in Carter years: 12-16%, today 7%). Many families have two vehicles, several televisions, cable TV, ipods, and on and on. I probably don’t need to describe our consumer culture. College is accessible to almost everyone because we have affordable state schools and community college programs. The communities are more and more integrated racially. This is true in the South, Northeast, Midwest, West. Being “bi-racial” is no longer the remarkable thing it was in those days. Affirmative action has helped many, many people, including Barack Obama, according to his own statements. Recently we’ve had two very highly placed African American officials: Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

    Just a quick comparison of things like taxes under Carter, today, and proposed by Obama shows that Obama intends to return us to the Carter-era tax structure. What will happen is that investment will shrivel up and unemployment will increase. Like night follows day, businesses will close and people will be laid off. By the way, all of this is ok for me personally because I am fairly old and, having lived through the Carter years, am very good at preparing beans and rice. But I can tell you that it is hell for a young adult to start out in a climate of no jobs, moving in with Mom and Dad, not being able to use one’s college education, etc. Trust me, when the young attorney gets laid off, the people at the local Starbucks can’t sell as much coffee and there isn’t as much need for dry cleaning.

    Michael, I don’t know how old you are, but my guess is that you can’t remember many of the changes that I am trying to convey to you. The country is in very good shape, but, like all countries, is imperfect. Look around you. Are people spending money? Before you reflexively shout No! take a drive down the highway and try getting into a rest area. Try getting something to eat at a rest stop. Go to an airport and see how hard it is to fly, how crowded. Go see the new Batman flick. It was packed when I saw it. During the Carter years, we really had trouble affording that kind of fun. We certainly weren’t flying here and there to visit friends, not like we do today.

    In fact, I think all of you Obamabots need to get out more.

    – Aggie

  183. M said,

    August 6, 2008 @ 4:31 pm


    You’re right, the Carter years were miserable and the economy did get better during the Reagan administration. We’ve seen economic growth since then and things are much better now, but you left it at Reagan. I think you’re forgetting a key reason why things are as you describe them today. Certainly all these changes weren’t due to Reagan being elected and Carter leaving the White House. During the 90’s we saw unemployement almost lower than ever and had a current account surplus. The economy was in great shape during the 90’s and entering the current Bush Administration. This was thanks to Bill Clinton! To jump from Carter being aweful and Reagan fixing the economy straight to things being OK today is a little bit of a jump (about 20 years of a jump)

    And Reagan was not the sole reason the economy suddenly got better. In fact, the ending of the “Stagflation” you mention didn’t have much to do with anything Reagan did. It was Paul Volcker who is widely credited with ending Staglation.

    Just wanted to keep discussion going… I’ve enjoyed reading thus far

  184. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 6, 2008 @ 5:53 pm


    You’re right. I stopped at Reagan because Michael mentioned going back to that era and my reply was getting very long.

    Under Bill Clinton the economy was fantastic. (This is partly why I am a PUMA) But, to be fair, the internet came of age during his administration and that was just a huge and powerful boost to the economy. Also, in retrospect, he didn’t battle terrorism effectively. He has said this himself. I believe he said something like: the greatest regret that he has about his administration is that they did not address terrorism effectively.

    Remember the first World Trade Center attack? We treated it as merely a crime, just as Leftists would require us to do today with September 11th. I feel very, very strongly that appeasement is a disaster. To me that is the key issue of our time, much more important than the economy. We can fix the economy if we make it worse, but we can’t bring back the dead.

    On the economic front, Clinton helped to create growth in a number of ways, including cutting back on welfare programs (an idea he borrowed from the Republicans) and I believe, cutting taxes. Under Obama we will return to the tax policies of the 1970’s according to the plan he has outlined, and certainly we will increase various government programs. I don’t even mind paying more taxes personally, I really don’t. But looking at the history of The Great Society programs, I see that we have actually harmed many of the people that we wanted to help. Not always, but too often. We created a dependent class and trained people to view themselves as victims. We took one problem (racism) and made it two (racism + the believe that the deck is so stacked against you that it is futile to do anything productive with your life). The Jesse Jacksons and Jeremiah Wrights of the world have harmed African Americans far more than any “typical white person” ever could. If you look at the document Obama signed when joining Trinity United Church of Christ, you will see that part of the pledge was against “middleclassness”. He signed something saying that lifting poor people into the middle class was a bad thing. I just can’t even express how profoundly I disagree with that philosophy.

    But I don’t actually care about that either. If that is the road that the American public chooses, so be it. I just hope that people understand what life in the 70’s really was like, what high taxes and ineffective government programs really do to the general population. It is funny in a way; Europe is distancing itself from those programs and taxes as quickly as it can and we are running towards them. We already have the highest corporate taxes in the western world. Why would companies stay here and employ our citizens if it is cheaper to do business in Ireland?

    – Aggie

  185. M said,

    August 6, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

    The first WTC attack was at an interesting point in time. In fact, we had just spent the years prior to it funding Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets. Was it even clear if he was the bad guy at that point? Currently, you couldn’t even ask that question… We’ve seen the capability of such radicals and there is no underestimating their threat anymore. I’m not justifying Clinton’s lack of action to handle it, I just don’t think any candidate could avoid terrorism given what we have seen more recently. So I don’t think that Terrorism would be treated like it was by Carter. Obama has already discussed fighting terrorism. I believe somewhere up above (and I don’t remember where exactly) you argued that Obama was reverting toward Bush like policies by speaking of continuing the War of Terror in Pakistan in place of the war in Iraq (I apologize if I remember incorrectly, I don’t feel like re-reading the entire column again). So are you worried he won’t fight terrorism or not? I guess I’m confused.

    I’m not sure you can compare the tax policies of Obama to that of Carter given the state were in right now. Carter never saw a currnet account deficit as large as the one we are running today. The American Dollar is weakening because we import more than we export and continue running up the deficit. It’s got to be reversed somehow. There’s no way McCain can even come close to balancing the budget as he claims if he’s merely going to cut excessive government spending, yet continue to give George Bush’s huge tax cuts that heavily favor the wealthiest Americans, the same “Trickle Down Economics” that didn’t work for Bush. Obama touts middle class tax cuts which were effective during the Clinton years.

    But you do bring up the fact that Europe is running from these tax policies and how high our corporate taxes are… Maybe that just shows our tax system seriously needs addressed, regardless of the candidate

  186. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 6, 2008 @ 7:30 pm


    Let me begin with Obama’s statements that we should fight Pakistan. Here’s the problem with Obama: He says everything, he talks on all sides of every issue, and so we have absolutely no idea what he honestly means or what he plans to do. Think about his poor supporters believing that he would use federal money for his campaign or that he wouldn’t support FISA or that he would withdraw immediately from Iraq. I discount everything that he says. All of it. While it is true that he is probably to the right of George Bush for this current news cycle, it is Just Noise.

    Re: Terrorism. Again, Clinton has apologized for his weak response. And I truly don’t blame him. Very few people understood terrorism in those days because it wasn’t in our faces. The Israelis understood it. Certain people in India probably had a pretty good idea, but most of us just had that comfortable feeling…”it can’t happen here!”

    Back to economics. Trickle down was actually a Reagan era phrase. I didn’t believe it at the time, but the economy certainly did improve for everyone. Actually, going back further, I think that John F. Kennedy first showed that you could cut taxes and increase revenues. The Bush tax cuts have done just that. Unlike the Clinton years, we are fighting two very expensive wars today and we suffered the economic trauma of 9/11 and the expenses associated with it. Bush inherited and collapsing stock market with the bursting bubble and September 11th. It is a miracle that we haven’t had a truly terrible economy. We’ve had something like an average of 5% unemployment and decent growth almost the entire time. The tax cuts have helped our economy. When we raise taxes under Obama, we will have less revenue. This is because businesses will cut back on investment and hiring. By the way, the Wall St. Journal published a graph recently showing that as a result of the Bush tax cuts, the percentage of the overall taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans WENT UP significantly. I’m sure you can dig that up; it was published sometime this summer. People get so jealous of others that they react irrationally.

    Again, this is all good with me. I don’t get too upset about money one way or the other. And I am damn sure that most people care about it more than I do… meaning that if we get another Carter, he too will be a one-term President.

    – Aggie

  187. CYK said,

    August 7, 2008 @ 8:08 pm

    “Hi Hillary backers,

    I’m always surprised by everything you guys doing against Obama only because Hillary lost. We’re a group of young democrats ranging from 18 to 30 years old. In 4 years, we’ll be the backbone of the democratic party. If Obama loses in the Fall semester because of you guys and Hillary, believe us, she will never be the president of the US, ever. We’ll do exactly the same thing you guys are doing now against Obama. One more thing , during the primary, Obama also had 18 millions backers. We’ll join you guys to play the game you have started. Listen guys, we need to get prepare for the next 30 years of the Republican party.

  188. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 7, 2008 @ 8:53 pm


    You are another in the long and depressing list of Obama supporters that are hostile, rude, and unable to write coherently in the English language.

    I don’t think that we’re going to have 30 years of Republicans, but I just cannot vote for someone as lacking in values as Barack Obama.

    – Aggie

  189. CYK said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 11:49 am

    First of all, we’re not attending a PhD forum in this site.
    Second of all, we don’t think you want to go down this road with us.
    In the personnal level, I’m pretty sure I’m smarter than you. And despite your arrogance, we know the difference between winner and loser. Earlier in the campaign,we went against people who said that Bill Clinton was a racist. Our group has Hillary supporters, they are willing to work closely with Obama, not because he is the best candidate, but because they want Democrats to win in the Fall and Obama is the democratic nominee. One more thing 20% of us are currently undergraduate students, the other 80% are either graduate students, researchers or are currently working in different government agencies, financial firms…

  190. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 12:07 pm


    If you really want to do this, you had better CYA and learn to spell. Really, you don’t need a PhD, and most computers will do it for you. (Didn’t “personnal” have a dotted red line under it, or some other indicator that it’s not a word?) If you all are so smart and so well educated, can’t you at least show it? I don’t know who the “we” and “us” are you keep referring to—but I’m not the least surprised to hear some of you work for government. You’ll make a Libertarian out of the rest of us.


  191. CYK said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

    We didn’t know that every time you write something, you need to go back and check your spelling. It doesn’t take a genius to understand your frustration.

  192. CYK said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

    She lost. End of the story.

  193. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 12:29 pm


    Your misplaced concerns about how smart or how educated we are unmask the underlying arrogance of Obama supporters. Many democrats are individuals who have worked hard all of their lives but do not have advanced degrees. This is also true of many Republicans, by the way. They are as smart as you – trust me on this – and when they look at Obama they see an empty suit.

    America could survive an empty suit, I suppose, but I for one cannot vote for someone who absolutely lacks both common sense and ethics. How else to explain 20 years with his mentor, Reverend Wright? When Barack Obama posited that he is a blank screen and his supporters project onto him whatever they want to see, he was correct. I don’t want a blank screen as President of the United States. I want an adult.

    – Aggie

  194. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

    We won’t vote for Obama. End of story.

    Bitterly clinging to my dictionary,

    – Aggie

  195. CYK said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

    We never told you that we’re Obama supporters. Go back and read again what we said. As far as we know, Obama won the primary race and all democrats need to back him up. The party is divided right now, some like Obama, some don’t. But at least, you guys need to respect the man, he won and that’s all. Seven years ago, one of us went to compete in the William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Exam, he wasn’t the brightest, but at the time, he was the best among us. Some of us were really disappointed but we worked with him . You don’t need to like the man, even Hillary Clinton agrees that Obama agenda is the Democratic party agenda.

  196. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 1:22 pm


    You seem really obsessed with academic achievement, and I suppose that is to be commended in a way. But it isn’t everything in life. As the years roll by, you’ll notice this.

    Obama would not get my vote if he had run unopposed in the primaries. He has character issues that disqualify him and on top of that, absolutely no one has a clue about what his policies will be. Is he taking federal dollars for his campaign as he promised on many occasions? No. What about Iraq? What does he believe? FISA? No matter how clever you and your friends are, none of you have any idea of what he would do as the leader of the free world… because no one does.

    – Aggie

  197. CYK said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

    Aggie, we’re not obsessed with academic achievement. We were just giving you an example. It’s true that some of us are currently students, but that’s not the point. Nobody will dislike you because you don’t want to vote for Obama. Aggie, the way you think about Obama can evolve or not the next two to three months. What we are trying to say here is the fact that we don’t want McCain to win the election. If Aggie or BTL is the Democratic nominee, we’ll be glad to back her or him up. We have concerns too, we don’t like the way Obama voted on the FISA bill, we also think that he will probably in favor of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Some of us are also really scared of having a black president. Did you guys see the last Republican ads against Obama? Imagine that the democratic nominee was Hillary Clinton and Obama backers went to Fox News or other conservative channels , and started blasting Clinton, I’m pretty sure you will be puzzled.

  198. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 2:49 pm


    What you’ve said here is nearly incoherent. First of all, you might have friends who worry about having a black president, but I don’t know anybody who is concerned about that at all. The issues with Obama have to do with character and experience, not skin color.

    Here’s another way for you to think about this: If Clinton had not run at all, I still would not support Obama. If he had run unopposed, I still wouldn’t support him. Furthermore, I think it is a bad idea to support somebody simply because of party affiliation. The future of our country does not boil down to Red Sox vs. Yankees. Obama is not mature enough to be the President of the United States. The confused and rapid changes of positions are indications of the shallowness of his knowledge and experience. His willingness to lie to his base is an indication of his value system. If you study his current positions, you will notice that with the exception of his tax policy, he is now in line with George W. Bush. McCain is actually more liberal than Obama today in some respects, if you believe what he is saying.

    But nobody believes what he is saying and that is the point. We’re about to spend four years with a guy in the White House who is a complete stranger.

    – Aggie

  199. CYK said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

    You see, Aggie you didn’t read what we said. We’re a group of people, Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, Biden supporters…We have discussed , sometimes with passion some of the issues you have pointed out. In our previous email,we just highlighted for you some of the concerns of our radical members, but at least we have a common agenda, we want to elect a democratic nominee to the White House. As a group, we don’t care if Obama is white, green or yellow.
    About the FISA bill, imagine that Obama has voted against the bill ( by the way, the bill didn’t really change much), and let say in October, we experience a terrorrist attack, Obama will automatically lose the election because the Republican will use it to advance “their politic of fear “.and the lack of judgment of Obama. Personally, I like John McCain, I have nothing against the man, he is a hero and he has been working with Democrats on most of difficult issues like immigration. He has criticized President Bush and has been criticized on several occasions too for his positions, but our goal here is to end the war in Iraq, our goal is to reclaim the leading role of the United States in the World, our goal is to show Bin Laden in the Afgan-Pakistan borders that we will catch him live or dead. Some of us have traveled a lot and people still like the US around the world despite what you hear on the news. Have you seen the news lately, Russia and Georgia are fighting now, what will the US do ? What will President Obama or President McCain do ? We’re discussing this issue right now, we have in the same room, Fox News, CNN , MSNBC, The Russian TV, the Georgian TV , the French TV and BBC. This is another crisis. We need to show to the world that we’re a strong country, have we succeeded the last eight years? Apparently, no. We’re also right now listening to Senator Hillary Clinton, we do like her and as she mentionned in her speech Obama and her together brought 36 millions voters in the poll, that’s huge. Trust us Aggie, we criticized Obama when he voted for the FISA bill, and we don’t think that helping him win the White House can be seen by him and his backers as a free ride. Aggie, we think you’re a smart person, you have your beliefs and your concerns about the man and we respect that, but at least we need to help the democratic nominee and together we can change the country. We’re the next generation .

  200. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 4:30 pm


    I don’t think that Obama is a good leader. It is really very simple.

    Beyond that, I don’t believe that the world views us as weak, no matter what you read in the media. They seem to come to us for help each and every time something goes wrong. I don’t feel that we need to worry about how much someone likes us. I took the liberty to cut and paste just one section from your comment:

    our goal is to reclaim the leading role of the United States in the World, our goal is to show Bin Laden in the Afgan-Pakistan borders that we will catch him live or dead

    You have said two things here. To the first, I say that no serious person could doubt that we are world leaders. Secondly, it is absurd to suggest that Senator McCain won’t want to capture him. It is just plain silly.

    It doesn’t matter to me where you are from, how much traveling you have done, how much time you spend watching Fox or CNN… it isn’t all that interesting. Your conclusion is that the most important thing is to elect a democrat. My conclusion is that the most important thing is to elect the most qualified person to the White House. Of our two options, the answer is obvious. McCain is far more capable than Obama no matter how you measure it.

    – Aggie

  201. CYK said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 5:37 pm

    Aggie, we respect your choice and we can detect among others, a person of convictions and principles, and you are. You will be a big lost for Obama. It was a healthy discussion, and we thank you for your input.

  202. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 8, 2008 @ 5:40 pm

    Thanks and good luck.

    – Aggie

  203. Matt said,

    August 9, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

    First of all, let me say that I am a political moderate and a registered Democrat, and I have a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton, and I think she would make a fine President. At the time of my state’s primary (New York), I was undecided between her and Obama, and I abstained.

    That said, I’m having a hard time understanding this movement. You think that Hillary Clinton is the rightful winner of the Democratic primary. Alright. I strongly disagree, but you’re entitled to your opinion. However, even if you thought that, I don’t see how you can rationally still be a “Hillary Clinton supporter.” If you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter, then you’re a Barack Obama supporter, because Hillary Clinton is a Barack Obama supporter. “I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama,” she said. How much clearer can she be? Do you think she’s lying? I think there’s a lot of anger here over perceived injustices, and I think it’s clouding a lot of people’s judgments.

    Furthermore, scanning through the above comments, I notice some disturbing trends. I’m talking primarily about the accusations of misogyny that are flying around so fast and loose. Anyone accusing you people of being irrational, in your minds, is somehow accusing women in general of being irrational. Are you claiming to speak for all women? Is the PUMA movement somehow specifically a “women’s movement?” If that’s the case, then why would I listen to you? If Hillary Clinton is “the woman’s candidate” (and I don’t believe she is – she’s much better than that), then why would I support her? What does she offer to male voters? Why would ANYONE, man or woman, want that kind of “war of the sexes?” I realize that many of you have seen and experienced sexism your whole lives. I realize that the idea that a woman could realistically be elected President is a wonderful sign of progress. But if you’re supporting her BECAUSE she’s a woman, then you are the ones being sexist, and there is no getting around that.

  204. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 9, 2008 @ 3:25 pm

    Hi Matt,

    First of all, I can support Hillary Clinton but disagree with her on her public statement of support for Barack Obama. I am a “free agent”. I support her because I agree with most of her policies, but happen to disagree with her on her recent support of Obama. (Do you notice the underlying idea in your note – that Clinton supporters should follow in lock-step? That’s a trait of Obama supporter, not us.) By the way, during the primaries she indicated that she felt that both she and McCain have more more experience than Obama. That is obvious.

    Re: Sexism. The campaign was filled with sexism from the media, the radio talk show hosts, and Obama supporters. This board is filled with very angry Obama supporters who are throwing around sexist language to disparage our choice… which is to take a pass on Obama. Somehow they seem to feel that the threatening and demeaning language will make us go along to get along. So far it hasn’t worked.

    I will never vote for Obama under any circumstances because he has surrounded himself with bigots (Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan), thieves (Tony Redzko), and even a couple of domestic terrorists (William Ayers and his wife). He was involved in ACORN which has been involved in voter fraud in several regions of the United States and is currently having other legal problems. Look them up. He doesn’t know his own mind (FISA, Iraq, the environment, campaign finance) and he lies constantly (all of the above). Did you hear about the time that he claimed credit for something that was voted on in the banking committee, stated on tape that he voted for it… and he isn’t even a member of the banking committee?!! That is really crazy stuff.

    On top of that, his followers scare me because they’ve fallen into lockstep behind their Messiah and haven’t noticed the things I’ve listed above. I get the same emails, over and over. Sometimes they are snarling with rage, sometimes polite, but the underlying content doesn’t change much.

    I can’t speak for others, but I promise you this: I won’t be voting for Barack.

    – Aggie

  205. Matt said,

    August 9, 2008 @ 6:04 pm

    Come on, now. You accuse Obama supporters of being dismissive of Clinton supporters, then go right ahead and do the exact same thing to Obama supporters and characterize as mindless followers of their messiah. That’s nothing more than a calculated McCain Campaign talking point (of which I see several creeping into your post), and it’s not helpful. I consider myself an Obama supporter, and there are a number of issues I strongly disagree with him about. We can’t get anywhere in political discourse unless we acknowledge that people can both disagree with us AND not be mindless (or misogynist!) puppets of someone else.

    Secondly, I think this particular “issue” is rather different. This is not analogous to saying “her energy policy is flawed, but she’s still the best candidate.” It’s supporting a candidate who ISN’T a candidate. You may as well write-in William T. Sherman.

    Ok, let’s keep talking about this alleged “sexist language.” Where is it? Am I being sexist right now? How can I tell? It seems to me like you’re really not being fair. Is “disparaging your choice” automatically sexist, in your eyes? How so?

    Finally, I most certainly have “noticed” the things about him that you mention. I don’t know how anyone could possibly be “unaware of all his supposed “radical ties,” given the constant chatter from the McCain campaign, and the fact that it’s all over the supposedly pro-Obama media. But I’ve looked into them, and discovered that there is not much to any of them. Yes, Obama belonged to Wright’s church for a long time, but a)the things he’s always quoted as saying are a few comments over a few decades, and taken totally out of context, and b)Obama has explained the nature of their relationship extensively and reasonably, including and especially in the most publicized speech of his campaign to date. The rest of your guilt-by-association accusations are extremely tenuous. He sat on the same charity’s board of directors with Ayers. Oh no! And ACORN is a civil rights and charity organization with 350,000 members. Are you seriously holding accountable everyone who was ever peripherally involved with them for all the actions of all the other members? And Louis Farrakhan? Huh? Are you referring to Farrakhan praising Obama? So now he’s accountable for everyone who LIKES him? Do you hold any other politician to such standards? Has Hillary Clinton never spoken with, been praised by, taken money from, or been involved in the same organizations as someone embarrassing? Come on.

    As for “not knowing his own mind,” I should think that a politician who’s willing to consider the facts, change his mind about something, and publicly admit he was wrong and explain his decision would be something we would be starved for after eight years of Bush. Ditto for actual compromise. Yes, he’s occasionally evasive. I certainly don’t deny that. But if you think he has been more often than Clinton, you’ve been watching a different election than I have.

    And finally, the “banking committee” thing. It’s called misspeaking. Do you really think he would LIE about something so easy to check? (Like Hillary “landing under sniper fire?” Like McCain claiming the Anbar Awakening is a result of the McSurge, when it actually happened months earlier, then saying “it’s just a matter of history?”) No. He’s not on the banking committee, but it WAS his bill, which he wrote, sponsored, and introduced. I bet you didn’t even know that, since the “pro-Obama media” barely reported the correction.

  206. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 9, 2008 @ 6:29 pm

    Re: Sexist language. Matt, read through the notes posted here. You’ll find it. I am just sure that you will find it. There is a very angry, demeaning quality to the conversation. I don’t understand why people are so upset that PUMAs have a different set of views than Obama supporters.

    I support Hillary Clinton, but since she is not going to be on the ticket, I will vote for John McCain. Others will vote Obama or simply not vote. You are having trouble hearing this so I’ll just keep repeating it: He has spent his adult life with bigots, criminals, and domestic terrorists. Jeremiah Wright alone finished him off as far as I am concerned. Barack Obama actually told us that he was unaware of those statements, but he is quoted in a 2004 interview in the Chicago Tribune, since published in a book about politicians and religion, saying that he attends church every Sunday at 11:00, same seat – for 17 years! And we know that he told Wright that “you can get a little rough” and finally, the church was SELLING those sermons under a “best of” collection. I might as well vote for someone who attended a church where they preached hatred of blacks. There is no difference.

    He didn’t simply sit on a “charity” board with Ayers. Ayers launched his political campaign by hosting a fund-raising meet and greet event in his home back in 1995. I bet you knew that, didn’t you Matt?

    Farrakhan spoke in Obama’s church and was featured in the church magazine as the recipient of an award.

    As far as ACORN goes, they delivered something like 17,000 false ballots in one city and 35,000 in another, if memory serves. You can look it up. They are extremely cheesy. On top of that, they were actually cheating about how they paid their workers.

    Those are the people that he built his adult life and career around. You are apparently comfortable with this. I am not.

    Watch the banking committee statement on youtube. How can he possibly have been mistaken? Do you know where you work? Do you know if you are a fireman or a history teacher? Could you ever mix it up? This man was casually lying about what committee he served on and what he voted on the week before! He would have to be demented to make a mistake like that. He simply tossed it out there because it sounded good.

    My guess is that the Obama campaign is becoming nervous because a lot of Hillary voters will not support him. Obama built his career in a certain way and the consequence of thousands of small decisions along the way is that this is one voter who will not vote for him.

    – Aggie

  207. Michael said,

    August 10, 2008 @ 10:41 pm

    Lets see 8 years of the current asshole,4 years of his asshole father, 8 years of Reagan trickle down economics, and 8 of the best years America has ever had with Clinton. Where the hell does Carter come in? Yes I am old enough to remember Carter he is the second worst president next to this current bozo. This country is in great shape? Now I know you are a Republican in sheep’s clothing, I doubt very seriously if you ever had to decide between paying the electric bill or buying groceries. I am glad you at least realize this country is imperfect because me, my ancestors and a lot people I know have known this for quite some time now. I don’t fault you for voting your agendas, we all have them. I won’t criticize you for voting for Mccain, thats your right, vote your way and we’ll vote ours. It just seems that this venue is used to degrade the candidate you don’t agree with, that too is your right. I do have a question for you though? What in YOUR opinion makes John McCain so much more ready to lead than Obama? Quite honestly neither have any experience being president, now if this was a senate race hmmmm you might have a point, but what makes you sooooooo sure that McCain won’t be worse than even Carter? What makes you so sure, a lot of CONSERVATIVE Republicans don’t even like him. Look I don’t have a doubt in mind that Obama might not win, He not only has to fight the PUMA assholes in his own party, Jesse Jackson wants cut off his testicles, the southern rednecks well you know why they aren’t gonna vote for him, THEN he has to fight you right-wing Republicans. Well if this is the best Republican party has to offer, mortgage crisis, credit crisis, high gas prices, budget deficit, unjust war, questionable associations, no experience ( hmmm how much experience did the current asshole have?), flip-flops,( I wish Bush had flip-flopped on this war, it might have saved some lives) I will take my chance with Obama. Old, rich, white men have been screwing this country up since the beginning and I know some of you think thats how it should be, but its time for a change. And remember when its Hillary’s turn there will be a LOT of Obama supporters who won’t support her. I will be one of the first.

  208. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 11, 2008 @ 5:54 am

    Gentle Readers,

    I offer Michael as the Typical Obama Supporter.

    Angry, irrational, all over the place. Judging by the tone of his comment, I don’t think that there is much to be gained by duking it out with him.

    There is one piece of information there that has come up from time to time – Obama supporters will not support Hillary Clinton if he happens to lose and she becomes the Democratic candidate in the future. You can skip to the last two lines of his diatribe for this. I believe that CYK delivered similar comments last week. They really are shooting themselves in the foot over this thing, aren’t they? The Democratic Party needs moderate democrats. I don’t think that MoveOn alone can win elections. But that’s just me.

    – Aggie

  209. Anonymous said,

    August 11, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

    You are all a bunch of White Racist FOOLS please vote for MCCAIN and then make sure that you deal with all the crap that comes your way- AS a African American Women you white women have always forgotten the need to stick with us – you hijacked the womens femist movement and now are trying to steal the nomination from Barack – read the blog by timewise http://www.timewise.org

    your whitenees is showing and we will all make sure you WHITE RACIST WOMEN ARE PUT BACK IN THE WHITE MAN KITCHEN WERE YOU BELONG.


  210. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 11, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

    Well, I wonder if the young man… was it Matt or Ben… who couldn’t find any misogynistic language from the Obama supports will read your wild ravings, Anonymous?

    The reason that I won’t vote for Obama is that he attracts people like you; he is a magnet for some truly disturbing stuff.

    – Aggie

  211. NO OBAMA EVER said,

    August 14, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

    I will NEVER VOTE OBAMA because he is plain NOT QUALIFIED to be the President of the United States. Ambition and a big mouth are NOT qualifications I admire or will ever vote for.

    MCCain’s ad showing Obama and Paris states ” Voting for Obama for President makes just as much sense as voting Paris for President ”


    Obama is like a 6 month entry level manager in a company thinking he will be their CEO the next year … BS is what it is …

    Those who think Obama is qualified to be President need to go out and get drunk …. !!!!

    Vote MCCAIN … I am a Hillary supporter who will VOTE REPUBLICAN ….

  212. Michael said,

    August 16, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

    Aggie, you disappoint me, angry?, Irrational?, all over the place?, I thought we could disagree without being disagreeable, I don’t see the problem, you won’t vote for Obama, we won’t vote for Hillary. Is that not our right as individuals to vote for who we want to no matter what our reasons are. Thats why this country is so great, the majority rules, I didn’t like Bush but he won so we dealt with him. If McCain wins we’ll be stuck with him. But I can almost assure you if he does, I’ll vote him in 2012 and hopefully so will a lot of other Obama supporters. Hey, he was good enough for you guys, and you all seem to have all the answers. I have been saying over and over and over again vote for who you want to, but when the shoe is on the other foot don’t criticize us for doing the same thing.
    And Aggie I am not angry, everyone has a right to their opinion, Personally deep down I think, and I might be wrong and I am sure you will correct me if I am, but most of you are horrified at the prospect of a black man, (who in your opinion has no experience) running this country. And I don’t think its overt racism, I think you are just more comfortable with someone who looks like you, and I am sure in this case you probably look more like Hillary than Obama. That being said I will not post anymore, its obvious that all the conversation in the world isn’t going to change our minds, I must say I did have a good time debating the issues though, good luck with your McCain campaign, maybe I’ll have the good fortune to vote for him in 2012.

  213. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 16, 2008 @ 10:41 pm

    Hey Michael,

    I might have you confused with somebody else. There was one guy who started out saying that if PUMAs refused to vote for Obama, then they wouldn’t vote for Hillary. A few posts later, it seems he denied saying that and instead said that if she were the nominee, he would vote for her, etc. Now I’m reading that you’ll never vote for Hillary. So it seems like a shell game to me.

    Aside from that, let me assure you that I won’t vote for the guy because he is inexperienced and because I disagree with his politics. He is all over the board on the issues and I can’t get a sense of where he would take the country. So I’ll take a pass. It has nothing to do with skin color. Couldn’t care less about that.

    – Aggie

  214. LisaHussein said,

    August 17, 2008 @ 12:00 am

    I was wondering what the he!! PUMA meant. Blood thirsty you cannot have it both ways. If someone calls you shrill you say it’s not valid for assessment simply because they disagree with you, yet you do the same – you call writers names because you disagree. If you don’t want that done to you then you need to stop doing it. As far as Wright and Ayers — ALL OF THE CANDIDATES HAVE SKELETONS – big ones with blood dripping from their fangs. As MOST people do. I have no problem with Wright – he tells the truth. And believe me THE TRUTH IS RELATIVE. If you don’t agree I suggest you go check out some of the TRC committees around the world. and you will see what truth is. Ayers is a non-issue. He’s someone who knows the person who was raising money for Obama. he’s someone who teaches at the same school. I have no idea the history of the people that I work with and might go to lunch with. And will not be held accountable for their actions. or for forgiving them for past wrongs — that’s part of my faith…forgiveness. Sometimes it’s easier than other times. For instance if a colleague knows that everyone is now afraid of Muslims and someone else has started a whisper campaign that I’m a Muslim, and when asked she acts coy and says “well she says she isn’t so i guess I have to believe her”; it will take longer for me to forgive. Certainly won’t happen in the next 4 years. If someone takes the ONLY hero that I’m allowed to have, that looks like me, and relegates him to 2nd fiddle to the likes of LB Johnson; it will take a little longer for me to forgive – certainly not in the next 4 years. When my so-called colleague starts siding with the common enemy and says things like, “only me and McSame have the experience to be POTUS” – you got it., it’s going to take a little longer for me to forgive. I can and will forgive, but IIIIII dooonnntt knnnooooow if i can do that by 2012.

  215. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 17, 2008 @ 7:13 am

    Dear LisaHussein,

    The biggest obstacle to us ever seeing eye to eye is that I don’t believe that Reverend Wright, the man who accuses the United States government of spreading AIDS to the black community is “telling the truth”. Just to give one example.

    I has nothing to do with religion, race, or anything along those lines. It has to do with basic values. If Obama supporters do not wish to have moderate and even conservative democrats in the party, they will lose roughly half of the current democrats. I don’t see where you make us up… with Republicans? How? Where do the votes come from?

    Currently Obama has just about identical positions to George Bush… but, the truth is no one has a clue where he stands on any issue. I’ll take McCain.

    – Aggie

  216. The Rabid Republican said,

    August 21, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

    God speed in your quest.

  217. Roy said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 9:21 am

    Aaaaah yes, it-has-begun! Obama has done it again! And what makes me Oh-So-Happy is that Obama knew from the very beginning of Hillary’s demise that she was NEVER going to be on his ticket…ever! And the phony ass PUMA people knew it too! Obama, Caroline, and Michelle knew Hillary would have been nothing but trouble. And you know what was so, so good? The text message came at 3 AM this morning! Machiavellian huh? Poor, poor Hillary! I can see her walking around with her “Sad Sack” face right now! She’ll probably wake up and go to one of her numerous bathrooms, have a drink and cry all morning. Then she has to go to the convention and act like she supports Obama when she knows she hates him. Poetic, huh? Now that it’s just about wrapped up…”On to the Convention,” (how’d ya’ like me now)!!

    Obama/Biden 08′

  218. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 11:29 am

    I love the way Obama supporters will accept anything.

    Biden? Change? Give me a break.

    – Aggie

  219. Wendy said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 11:59 am

    I am soooooo tired of the Roe vs Wade issue being used to bludgen women. Washington has done NOTHING but use this issue as a scare tactic for forty years.

    Eight years ago we were told that W as president would end a woman’s choice, yet here it is again being used to beat us over the head.

    This democrat thinks McCain is a good american who will serve this county with honor as he has done in the past. He has my vote, I will hold out for Hillary in 2012.

  220. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

    Me too, Wendy.

    – Aggie

  221. MaryInCary said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

    What a bunch of whiners!! This is just sour grapes. I would vote for any Democrat that won the nomination and that happens to be Senator Obama. Look at this country. Look at what has happened to our dollar, look at the people who have lost their sons, daughters or parents in Iraq for no good reason. Or the people who have lost their very homes. Look at the price of gasoline. We’re on the verge of a major depression and all this happened within the last 8 years. Go ahead and vote for McCain. And shame on the people who voted Bush into office a 2nd time. The whole world mocks this country now and has no respect for us after the Bush/Cheney leadership. Now those two have grown much more wealthy over their term…but at what cost. They have blood on their hands. Go ahead and vote McCain…we need another four years of this don’t we. Shame on you all. Quit acting like children and grow up.

  222. Anonymous said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

    Experience does not necessarily translate to good governance. All you have to do is look at the current administration–one that had the most experience ever. And where did that experience take us. The truth is that the Presidency IS on the job training. No experience in the world can prepare you for being POTUS. What does matter are questions of judgment, intelligence and a strong analytical mind, and character–qualities that any rational, honest person will admit Obama possesses. You PUMA people are really quite ridiculous, especially if you call yourselves Democrats. I have a hard time believing that. It’s crazy to think that a democrat would vote for someone like McCain who is a conservative and knows absolutely nothing, by his own admission. about the economy. And this is the main issue of this election. McCain’s judgemnt over and over again comes to question. Being a POW is not good enough to give you bonafides when it comes to national security and foreign policy. His answers to any question definitely tell anyone really objective that he has pat responses rather than having really thought about the issues. If McCain wins, these so called PUMA’s are going to be really disappointed. As for Hillary, unless she dumps Bill she’s done for.

  223. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 3:32 pm


    I’m a rational person and I deny that Obama has “judgment, experience, a strong analytical mind” and certainly not character. Are you kidding? Jeremiah Wright? William Ayers? Tony Rezko? Character? How did his fabulous character and wonderful mind allow him to hang out with that band of creeps, bigots and criminals?

    P.S. I thought the main issue of the election was the war in Iraq? That didn’t work out so well and now you’re switching to the economy?

    And you want Hillary to dump Bill? Or she’s “done for”?

    My advice: Stay away from the sharps.

    – Aggie

  224. Cannonshop said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

    Wow… I thought Republicans fought with each other! I can see the position of the Obama supporters-they’ve got a candidate with no history, therefore, no dangerous skeletons (unlike John Kerry), who’s charismatic (Unlike Al Gore), and a genuinely unpopular incumbent who can’t run again (George Bush). Like 2004, if the Democratic Party loses this year, it’s the fault of…the Democratic Party. Internal bickering doesn’t lend itself in real, contested, election to a victory.

  225. CaniceInCA said,

    August 23, 2008 @ 10:35 pm

    I registered to vote democrat in 1972, my first national election. I am still a registered democrat, and have to say that some of the discussion here, like saying “You PUMA people are really quite ridiculous, especially if you call yourselves Democrats.” really bothers me. I thought our party had blown it when finally winning a majority in congress, they failed to end the war, didnt do squat about our economic mess, and sit idly by while energy costs soar. I guess that was all a warmup for preparing to allow “superdelegates” select to Obama, another sad example of where the party of John F Kennedy has gone to. I didn’t vote for Obama in the primary. But the day I was driving along and they announced Obama was now ahead in delegates I shook my head in disbelief…how ironic that the Democratic party had decided to dump democracy. I mean when McCain got the most delegates in his party, it was the old fashion way- he got more votes, he wins way, not with the help of “superfriends”..and people that think being a POW was just another experience in life need to rethink that. I am not saying that in and of itself says he should be the next president, but if you read anything about his experience, and how he views that experience, I think it says something of his character. Unless there is a miracle in Denver and she gets her rightful nomination, I’m with Wendy, and will likely vote McCain and hope Hillary makes it in 2012.
    People that think Obama won need to check the count before the superpals were added…if just 222 of the superchumps switched, she would be our nominee… :)

  226. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 24, 2008 @ 6:47 am

    You make such an interesting point about the Super Friends. It is true that the Republicans have a much more democratic way of choosing a candidate. I saw a trailer for a new documentary about how the caucuses work, and how the Obama people behaved in Texas, Iowa and Indiana. It is sickening and also very sad, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It is called, We Will Not Be Silenced. So google that and you can watch it. It is disturbing.

    I grew up in a strictly Democratic household, but, to paraphrase Obama, This Isn’t The Democratic Party I Knew.

    – Aggie

  227. Carol said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 6:47 am

    Dear PUMAs, Hillary Lost. Of course she was treated badly by the male dominated media! Duh! When hasn’t a woman had to endure twice as much crap as a man??? We get tough, not cry like babies and stamp our feet – I’m gonna’ show you! What will that prove?? Time to move on. If Florida and Minnesota had obeyed the rules (everyone else did), she may not have lost. BUT, SHE DID! If you allow another republican to get into office to satisfy your lust for vengeance, then you and the Clintons will be remembered as a bunch of whiny babies who think that rules are for other people. HELP SAVE US FROM THE REPUBLICANS!

  228. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 7:12 am

    Dear Carol,

    She didn’t “lose”. The DNC simply took some of her votes and assigned them to the Messiah. Additionally, the caucus process in Iowa, Texas and Indiana was filled with fraud and abuse, and this has been documented. Some people voted who didn’t have the right to vote; others were turned away and told that they couldn’t vote. Guess which group got which treatment? They used fascist, strong-arm tactics to intimidate people. Not democracy and not a democratic party that I can support.

    I am one PUMA who will vote for McCain. I assume that the Democratic Party will figure out a way to reinstate democracy for the 2012 election.

    – Aggie

  229. Carol said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 9:35 am

    My Dear Aggie,

    If you can vote for McCain and all of his anti-woman policies just to prove a point, then you truly did not support anything that Hillary stood for and I am ashamed and embarrassed for you.

    Hoping you change your mind,

  230. John McCain said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 10:02 am

    I can’t wait until I win thanks to you folks. You won’t have a dime when I get through. More money for me and Cindy. Maybe I will have 14 houses I can’t remember by the end of my terms in the Whitehouse. If you are dumb enough to elect me once you will do it again. Yippe ky o ky a.

  231. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 10:41 am

    Dear Carol,

    McCain doesn’t have “anti-woman” policies. That’s silly.

    The Democrats screwed-up royally this year. No amount of bullying or begging or snideness (see the idiot above who calls himself “John McCain”. This moron doesn’t get the fact that John McCain doesn’t own any houses; his wife does. They have separate finances. Tough idea for the Typical Obama Supporter, I guess.)

    You will ever get me to vote for Obama. All I have to do is think about Reverend Wright for 5 seconds and that’s it. Or how about Father Pfleger at Obama’s church making fun of white people and pretending to be Hillary crying. Boy, that sure made me want to support him. You bet. The guy that spent 20 years in the misogynist, anti-semitic, anti-white, pro-Nation of Islam church. Sure, I’ll run right out and vote for him. Twice. Because they aren’t hung up about voter fraud either.

    – Aggie

  232. Carol said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 11:09 am


    I think you have let your anger cloud your brain. John McCain not anti-woman?? Do you even Know what he stands for???????

    – McCain opposes efforts to ensure that women get paid equal wages for equal work.
    – McCain supports a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.
    – McCain thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
    – McCain supported limits on access to contraceptives.
    – McCain said he will appoint “clones of Alito and Roberts.”
    Just to name a few……..
    Not to mention how he handled himself in his personal life……lying, cheating adulterer.

    I don’t think any of those things are silly, do you?

    There are plenty of examples of McCain supporters who are morons, but I am not going to list them for you. McCain cannot control those who support him, just as Obama can’t.

    Do what you have to do, Aggie, and I hope that you can live with yourself if McSame gets elected.

    I stand by my original post:

    If you can vote for McCain and all of his anti-woman policies just to prove a point, then you truly did not support anything that Hillary stood for and I am ashamed and embarrassed for you.

    What Would Hillary Do?


  233. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 1:26 pm


    As you well know, what you’ve listed above is inaccurate. And silly. The most amusing part of all is the part about his first failed marriage. Did you vote for Bill Clinton, twice, or not? I know I did.

    I can deal with adultery (hey, if John Edwards had been the nominee, would you have voted for him????), but not Jew-hatred, hatred of white people, hatred of Italians, hatred of America, etc. Obama is a sleazy Chicago politician. I can even take a certain amount of that. But he went too far and I am not voting for him. I can’t wait to cast my vote for John McCain! Cannot. Wait.

    – Aggie

  234. Carol said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

    I’m glad you’re amused, Aggie.

    I’m disgusted.

    I hope you get what you deserve.


  235. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

    I hope so too Carol. I deserve a democratic party that observes the basic democratic principal of one person, one vote. I deserve a sane candidate. I don’t deserve to have to swallow misogyny, Jew hatred, and the absurd notion that the United States intentionally spread AIDS among blacks. I don’t deserve a candidate that lies about every single position – FISA, Iraq, campaign spending – to the point where he is indistinguishable from George Bush. I don’t deserve to listen to people trash my candidate or my views.

    You’re disgusted but, trust me, I am too.

    No Obama. Or, if he wins, it won’t be with my vote. And what is super-scary is that I know so many young people, college students and young adults, who are equally turned off. And I have elderly relatives who never voted Republican, not once in 80+ years, who will cast their very first vote for a Republican. John McCain. Obama might win, but it won’t be because he deserves it.

    – Aggie

  236. Joe Robinson said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

    These people should know that John McCain was NOT born in the USA, he was born in Panama.

  237. CaniceInCA said,

    August 25, 2008 @ 9:50 pm

    Obama? An attractive, intelligent man, interesting, but—he’s hard to categorize. Is he Gen. Obama? No, no military background.
    Brilliant Businessman Obama? No, he never worked in business.
    Famous Name Obama? No, it’s a new name, an unusual one.
    Longtime Governor Obama? No. He’s a community organizer (what’s that?), then a lawyer (boo), then a state legislator (so what, so’s my cousin), then U.S. senator (less than four years!).
    Lets leave the hyperbole aside and focus on why many democrats like me wont vote for him- I don’t trust him, I don’t trust him, I don’t trust him…get it?
    Picking Slow Joe to run with him clinched the decision for me to vote to cast my vote elsewhere.
    As long as the Democratic Party continues this idiotic linkage to Bush and McCain, the more silly it looks.
    An finally, let me add that my family has history of answering the call to arms for this country, even in unpopular wars like VietNam and Iraq-where I have cousin serving now. We were unimpressed when in a July 26 London news conference, Mr. Obama explained: “I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisers, a former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy, but he wasn’t on the Senate staff.”
    The solution was obvious. Leave the campaign adviser behind and visit the wounded troops. Mr. Obama’s decision to work out in the hotel gym instead adds to his growing reputation for arrogance.
    OK, now all you Obamaists can beat up on me…and you will still be wrong.

  238. Ilene Sternberg said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 1:39 am

    I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary but those of you who can’t get over her loss and are vowing to vote for McSame are morons! What good would four more years of Bushism do for the country? Yes, the news media did not treat her fairly. I would love to see a woman president in my lifetime. I always said there is more misogyny in this country than racism, but what you’re doing is only making women look like a bunch of sore loser idiots. And why are you bashing Obama? This is not his fault. He has the same platform as Clinton. You are ruining her chances to ever be elected again. I have never seen such irrational behavior. You should join the Republiscum or start your own party. Shame on you all! Where are your brains?
    Furthermore, McCain is a gigantic phony. He trashed his first wife: Carol.
    He’s lied about his POW experience, which he brings up every chance he gets:
    It seems from reading this that his handicaps are most likely injuries he incurred from being shot down, not from being tortured:
    http://www.alternet.org/election08/95825/i_spent_years_as_a_pow_with_john_mccain%2C_and_his_finger_should_not_be_near_the_red_button/ :

  239. Ilene Sternberg said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 1:51 am

    Do you reall want to vote for this man?:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

  240. Ilene Sternberg said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 2:16 am


  241. Ilene Sternberg said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 2:17 am


  242. Ilene Sternberg said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 2:23 am

    I Spent Years as a POW with John McCain, and His Finger Should Not Be Near the Red Button
    By Phillip Butler


  243. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 6:38 am

    Ilene, Ilene…

    I am voting for McCain. I can’t speak for anyone else, but that is what I plan to do in November. Four years from now, if McCain wins, I’ll bet a nickel that the democrats come up with someone that I can vote for. The hysterics just aren’t worth it…

    – Aggie

  244. Loyal_Democrat said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 11:35 am

    I just can’t see supporting a party anymore that doesn’t support the Democratic process.

    Barack Obama openly bribed the superdelegates.


    And Barack Obama did not just openly bribe the superdelegates that are federal candidates he bribed the superdelegates who are state and local officials as well.


    Is this the undemocratic and underhanded behavior we can expect out of the Democratic Party with Howard Dean at the helm.

  245. Paul said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 1:30 pm

    I am a Repulican. A moderate, pro-choice, pro-McCain Republican. I really disliked George Bush and how he treated McCain in 2000. I have also loved watching McCain buck Bush and challenge him and basically be a thorn in his side for the last 8 years. Card core Republicans can’t stand him, but he had to shore up his base, so yes, he’s beating the conservative drum right now, just to pacify Anne Coulter.

    But I also think Bush treated McCain in a very similar way that Obama is treating Hillary. If I were a Hillary supporter, I’d be pretty pissed, and I wouldn’t know what to do.

    But let’s be clear on one thing. McCain is NOT like Bush, never has been. Don’t vote for a “platform,” because platforms don’t make decidions, don’t lead, don’t have their finger on the button.

    Vote for the man. Sorry it wasn’t a woman this time.

  246. Joe Smith said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

    I think this is great. I am a diehard conservative, and I love that all of you Hillary ladies are coming to my side.

    Don’t you worry; we will make sure that we take away that right of choice that this country has so foolishly clung to. Women shouldn’t have control over their own bodies, and I for one am glad that some Hillary supporters are finally understanding that.

    With McCain as our president, we can really get some conservative judges in place, and hopefully keep them there for the rest of this country’s future. Then we can make sure that no women or democratic man has a chance to make a differnece.

    This country’s future is looking up!

  247. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

    And another Obamabot posing as a McCain supporter. Thanks “Joe Smith” for all your kind words.

    I’ll take my chances with the Supreme Court and the fact that Roe v. Wade is established law.

    You can go back to your racist church now.

    – Aggie

  248. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

    Along with Shakespeare’s sonnets, Beethoven’s late string quartets, and Monet’s water lilies surely has to rank Aggie’s responses to the rabid and unhinged commenters on this thread. What a joy to behold.

    I can only offer this puzzling fact to the supporters of The One:

    Obama’s support has declined in each of the last three individual nights of polling. This may be either statistical noise or a reaction to the selection of Biden. If it’s the latter, it probably has less to do with Biden than Hillary Clinton. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democratic women say Clinton should have been picked and 21% of them say they’ll vote for McCain.

    Just when Obama’s poll numbers should be rising, they’re deflating. Maybe you guys need to yell MORONS! or WHINERS! a little louder. You’re not getting through to your Democratic sisters. Maybe tell them to stop running their mouths first—I find that really focuses women’s minds.

    Seriously, I think it’s too late. Obviously not every disaffected Clinton supporter will vote for McCain. But if even just half of the 21% do, and others can’t bring themselves to vote at all, won’t your candidate in all likelihood lose, and won’t your name-calling and bullying have been counterproductive? Seems that way to me, but then as I said before, I think it’s too late anyway.


  249. John Bergman said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

    I hope Obama wins but my anger about how you so called PUMAs are destroying the election AND not to mention everything you and your wonderful HRC stands for. When the economy is destroyed further, when we alienate our allies further, and when Roe v. Wade is overturned, I wanna see you publicly wear those stupid PUMA pins in public. When all of this happens, I know you won’t have the guts to do so. PUMAs will suddenly become an endangered species, until of course 2012, when you’ll come out of hiding.

    But you think Obama supporters will have a short memory? Well we won’t. When the Republicans go back to hating HRC (well they never really stopped), your candidate will have to contend with angry Obama supporters AND the vast right wing conspiracy.

    Thank you for helping destroy the country. Have a nice day. :)

  250. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

    These Obamabots are soooo poorly educated. Look at this sentence:

    I hope Obama wins but my anger about how you so called PUMAs are destroying the election AND not to mention everything you and your wonderful HRC stands for.


    Or how about this one from the Department of Redundancy Department:

    When the economy is destroyed further, when we alienate our allies further, and when Roe v. Wade is overturned, I wanna see you publicly wear those stupid PUMA pins in public.

    Should we wear our stupid pins in public, or publicly? Inquiring minds want to know!

    And my favorite tactic… If I can’t get my way I will destroy the Democratic Party. Whaaaaaaaaaaaa:

    But you think Obama supporters will have a short memory? Well we won’t. When the Republicans go back to hating HRC (well they never really stopped), your candidate will have to contend with angry Obama supporters AND the vast right wing conspiracy.

    Speaking for myself, I just love being bullied by idiots like the writer above. And it surely will cause me to change my mind and vote for Barry. One of these days. Please, Obamabots, hold you breath and I’ll get back to you.

    – Aggie

  251. Paul said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 7:19 pm

    I am a moderate Republican. I have supported McCain since before 2000. I used to be really skeptical about Hillary, but when I watched the debates (thinking she would be the nominee at that point) I said, “You know, Hillary ain’t bad. I could deal with her being president. Of any of the Democrats, she’s the strongest one.” Then I saw how her party crapped on her, and I started to feel for her. Obama treated her like Bush treated McCain in 2000.

    I think parties do them a disservice when they push too hard to the right or the left. Most people favor the middle round. Moderation in all things.

    Obama and his group are really radical, and frankly, UnAmerican.

    I have heard some of my die hard conservative friends say, “McCain isn’t really a Republican. He would have been a Democrat if he didn’t live in Arizona, He had to be a Republican just to get elected, but he’s really a Democrat.”

    Moderate democrats who supported Hillary would do well to vote for McCain. He would bring about effective change.

  252. Korinne said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

    Hi Aggie and all you Hillary-lovers out there! Young people (including young women) do not want “more of the same” and that includes the Clintons. You argue that the primary process was “undemocratic.” Was it “democratic” of Hillary to run in Michigan when other Dems bowed out at the party’s behest? Is it “democratic” to count all those votes toward Hills when no one else was on the ballot? The fact that she argues for that proves to me that her leadership is not the kind I wish for our country. Time to sweep out the old nuts like you, McCain, and everyone else who thinks “America” needs to be kept “as is” or to roll back everything to the good ole days of the 1950s where we bomb our enemies to smithereens and keep everyone in their proper places where they belong. A new day dawns, and we have a new America, full of fresh faces of all colors, wanting to change course and sail to new heights. It’s time for you to step aside and let change happen as it will for all empires, and all civilizations. We will move forward while you continue to look to the past for answers. Good luck to you all!

  253. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 8:14 pm

    Hi Korinne,

    The problem with what you are suggesting is this: We are still able to vote. In order to win, Obama needs about 50.01% of the votes. So, just throwing us away like out of date clothes won’t do, because we still vote. We may be old and wrinkly, but we vote.

    Good luck to you too!

    – Aggie

  254. Paul said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 8:33 pm

    Again, moderate Republican here, so it might not be my place to say, but I worry about the DNC and how it’s run. (I worry about the RNC, too, but that’s another story.)

    It looks to me like the DNC swept aside a more worthy, better candidate, because Obama wow’d and wooed more starry eyed idealists in Hollywood, and was able to drum up more bucks. Believe it or not, the DNC was steered by Oprah Winfrey, Madonna, George Cluny, and people that have WAY more money than John McCain!!

    I think the DNC needs to get hold of it’s senses.

  255. CaniceInCA said,

    August 26, 2008 @ 11:30 pm

    The pundits on TV are tearing apart ever word Hillary has said at the convention tonight, but they are right about this…she never said Obama would be the best candidate to elect. Even though she said we need to support him. I saw it as a speech to support the party, pave the way for her political future, and while her criticism of McCain was tepid at best, her endorsement of Obama was even weaker. Lets face it, as much as some people won’t accept it, moderate views, like “Paul said” , is where most people are at. Tying McCain to Bush is wacky.
    McCain early on was critical of how the Iraq war was conducted. Before the war, the Army Chief of Staff had tried to tell the Bush administration their win quick and they will love us plan was likely to fail. The advice way back then was more troops, something McCain kept on saying was the only way to curb the violence and get our troops home…and even Obama has admitted the so called surge worked. McCain has bipartisan support in Congress, and with his more moderate leanings, I do not think we will see what I keep hearing, Bush’s third term. I think as soon as the extreme left wing of the party realizes that while they have the media on their side, the rest of America isn’t, the better off we will all be.
    And to back up what Bloodthirsty Liberal said, current polls show it McCain slightly ahead in several key states, and even elsewhere. Look for a McCain bounce in September…

  256. Rod said,

    August 27, 2008 @ 12:51 am

    Guys and gals–I want you to think of every member of the military who has been killed or maimed under John McCain’s watchful eye when you go into the ballot box. I want you to think of every factory worker who has been laid off because the Republicans care only about big business and big oil. If this makes you happy, stay home, vote John McCain, write in Hillary or whatever, but know what you are doing.

    Elections aren’t for making protests; they are for choosing the leader of the free world. I sympathize with your feelings, I really do. I went to the 1992 Presidential Inauguration and shook both Bill and Hillary’s hand and talked with them. I have great admiration for her. Once the primary is over, however, the primary is over.

    Perhaps the media discriminated against Hillary. Maybe some Obama supporters were jerks. Those are terrible reasons to ruin your future or those of your children.

    I just ask that you be open to Senator Obama. I am a lifelong Democrat and I would be furious if the Democrats lost this election because Hillary’s supporters did not vote Democratic.

    I am going to go to Hillary’s web site and help her retire her debt. I hope you will do the right thing, by your own self, by your own party, and by your country.

  257. pleaforrationality said,

    August 27, 2008 @ 1:54 am

    Reading a number of these comments, I am very disturbed by the irrational thought process I see happening. If you supported Hillary, I will assume it was for her policy positions and not simply because she was a woman. I can understand supporting her and being upset that she isn’t going to be the candidate. However, if you can’t vote for her I would assume you would vote for the candidate with the most similar positions.

    Would that not be Obama?

    Wouldn’t the green party candidate be more similar to Hillary than the republican party candidate? If you were to list in two columns the positions that are similar and different between Hillary and Obama and then if you were to do the same with Hillary and McCain, you would see a vast difference (one that Hillary herself would attest to). If you still choose to vote for McCain, aren’t you betraying the principles that Hillary stood for? If you have a deep-seated personal hate for Obama, then at least vote for the green party, not the republican party.

    I should note that I was an Edwards supporter and would have voted for either Hillary or Obama.

  258. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 27, 2008 @ 6:45 am


    Couple of thoughts. You are using scare tactics. It could as easily be said that 9/11 was Bill Clinton’s problem. Or that under the democrats, we never had a difficult economy. Can you recall Jimmy Carter? I notice that the party isn’t quite so eager to trot him out this time. That’s because Obama’s positions so closely mirror Carter’s, and they were a disaster.

    Pleaforrtaionality – again, same tactic. Let me explain something to both of you. If I make a list of McCain’s positions, Hillary’s positions, Bush’s positions and Obama’s positions, currently the two closest matches belong to Obama and Bush. Obama has adopted the Bush policy on almost everything but taxes. (If I choose the candidate I want from that list, #1 is Hillary, #2 is McCain.)

    You were an Edwards supporter, which tells me right off the bat that you happen to be further Left on the spectrum than I. That is why you would choose the Green Party. I think that the Green Party is loaded with antisemites, kooks, fascists, etc., plus their actual platform would cause a massive recession. Some of those guys have joined the democrats (William Ayers, Reverend Wright, etc.) To quote Obama: “Words matter”. Words of hatred matter.

    You can use scare tactics; it is a tried and true political approach, but it doesn’t work with this voter.

    – Aggie

  259. Paul said,

    August 27, 2008 @ 9:14 am

    This is really interesting to me, because as a moderate Republican, I used to take so much *fertilizer* from my fellow Republicans when I supported McCain in 2000. They used to say, “How can you support him? He’s a liberal!”

    Scare tactics. Going both ways.

    Most of us are moderate. Moderates unite!

    As far as Edwards go, I’m a North Carolina doctor, and WE HATE EDWARDS. He made all his money suing doctors in my home town. Every time he spoke about health care I had to puke because he was responsible for driving all the gynecologists away.

  260. Robert said,

    August 27, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

    PUMA is finally extinct.
    The charade is over. Party Unity Is Reality!
    If you truly care about the future of this country, it’s not about Hillary, or Barack, or John McCain, it’s about undoing the wrongs we’ve suffered for the last 8 years, not trying to create false drama.
    PUMA got no donations, but they sure got a lot of publicity, luckily their star has been extinguished over the past two days.
    It’s about the future, not about Hillary. I regained my respect for Hillary last night, I hope these PUMA freaks gain a little respect for an honest campaign, a good man, and a genuine win. If they vote for John McCain, then they were Republicans to begin with and will continue to vote against their own best interests.
    Vote Obama / Biden 2008!

  261. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 27, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

    I’m voting for McCain.

    – Aggie

  262. pleaforrationality said,

    August 27, 2008 @ 10:16 pm

    Bloodthirsty Liberal,
    I appreciate your response, but in part I think you lumped me in with another person (by saying “again, same tactics” when I did not use the same tactics) and in part I find it hard to accept the main thesis of your response (that Obamas positions are most similar to Bush).

    First, you act as if I was using scare tactics, but nowhere in my response was there any scare tactic at all. I was simply asking to do a comparison of positions. Could you quote the section where I used “scare tactics”?

    Second, I simply cannot accept that Obama’s postions are most similar to Bush. Could you be much more specific? You admit they differ on taxation. By extension I would assume you would admit they differ on general economic plans (which in itself is a huge difference). I believe they also differ on health care, education, privatization of social security, scientific funding, labor and unions, appointing loyalists vs the most qualified people to positions within the govenment, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, viewing war as a last resort, talking to enemies (which doesn’t inherently mean capitulation or appeasement)… should I go on? Hillary herself has said her positions are most similar to Obama. Are you suggesting that she lied about this?

    I can understand supporting McCain as a Republican, I just can’t as a former Hillary supporter. Finally regarding your comments on the green party, while it may contain some kooks, doesn’t every party? I’m not sure who the fascists would be in the party. I was under the impression that the definition of fascism was corporate control of a government…. which I believe is the opposite of the green party platform.

  263. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 27, 2008 @ 11:01 pm


    Let’s start with your definition of fascism, that it is a corporate control of government. Absolutely wrong. People disagree with the fine points of defining fascism, but the closest system is communism. Communism takes over property for “the workers” and fascism takes over for the ethnic group. In both cases, the state ends up with ownership of everything. So, in Germany, Hitler was similar to the communists except that he gave everything to the ethnic Germans rather than to “the workers”. And many, many communists joined his movement. Hitler was also oppressing the very wealthy with tax rates over 80-90% in some cases and giving the money to ethnic Germans. So he hated the rich, Jews, the Roma, homosexuals, Poles, etc. It was a populist movement, in fact. When you hear a politician trying to get a crowd excited by getting them to hate and feel jealousy of “the other”, whether the other is Jews or the wealthy or blacks or whatever… you’re hearing Hitler’s technique. In its mildest form it sounds like John Edwards but in its most aggressive form it leads to what we saw in Europe in the 40’s. This was also true of Italy, by the way. It certainly was not corporate control, although I understand that that misconception is widespread. You should read up on that era and on fascism from a historian, rather than from a polemicist. It is fascinating and you will never view political dialogue in the same way again. A great starting point is Hitler’s Beneficiaries by the German historian Gotz Aly. Aly is one of the leading historians of the era and does a great job of explaining how ordinary Germany loved the Nazis because they were receiving so much free stuff (apartments, jobs, furniture, jewelry, clothing, food) from their unfortunate Jewish neighbors. It was a populist movement, very similar to communism and very close to the rhetoric of the Green Party or the left wing of the democratic party.

    Secondly, I believe that Obama has moved his Iraq position over to the point where it is indistinguishable from Bush. He went from immediate withdrawal to 16 months to I’ll listen to the generals. He now refuses to say when he will pull troops out of Iraq. He was opposed to FISA until he flipped and supported it. He lied about how he would finance his campaign, didn’t he? There are other examples, but it has been a long day and my mind is a little tired.

    So, for tonight, let me just assure you that beyond my concern for Obama’s various lies and flip flops, much stronger than any of that, is my rejection of his ethics. He hung out in a church for 20 years where the preacher taught hate of Jews, Americans, Italians, whites… you name it. They blamed AIDS on the government. That is disgusting. Obama doesn’t seem to me to have an ethical core and I don’t think he will be able to make ethical decisions. So I’m not voting for him.

    – Aggie

  264. David said,

    August 28, 2008 @ 12:12 am


    I’ve only just now stumbled upon this blog and, truth be told, I have had a hearty chuckle at a few of the comments posted here over the months. Like the one supposedly written by John McCain himself. Haha! What a fun time that was to read.

    And yet, I find this entire position troubling. I, like so many people who have posted before me, find it inconceivable that a self-professed Democrat and former Hillary supporter would throw in with McCain now. To the extent that this is a form of “protest” — the cost is far greater than the reward. For all your self-reassuring certainty that Roe v. Wade is “established law,” the truth remains that the Supreme Court CAN overturn their decisions and, given a conservative majority, WILL do so. Heck, Scalia, Roberts and Alito are practically foaming at the mouth for a chance to stick that particular feather in their cap. Why, the erosion of civil liberties alone that has taken place in the last 7 years should militate against ANY possible continuation of Republican rule.

    Furthermore, I do not find the argument of “Obama used shady practices to win primaries” to be compelling in the slightest. Lest we forget that the great President J. F. Kennedy supposedly won several primaries by either buying votes (something that you have accused Obama of) or counting the votes of the recently deceased in his favor. And, as much as you “hmm” and “haw” about Obama’s unscrupulous tactics, I somehow doubt that he ever stooped so low as to transcribe names off of tombstones to win a state’s delegates.

    As to the criticism that Obama has been connected with several unsavory characters (e.g., his pastor), I would have to point to Senator McCain’s circle of friends. After all, if you take Sen. Obama to task for belonging to Rev. Wright’s congregation, how are you not also taking Sen. McCain to task for marrying the daughter of a criminal? For all Rev. Wright’s outrageous viewpoints, he never killed reporters in order to further his career or in order to make money. Cindy McCain’s father, however, did – a fact that the “whoremedia” (as you put it) seems to have largely ignored.

    Finally, I would like to address the “racism” argument and a slight point of poor word choice on your part, I think. First the word-choice issue: the terms “Anti-Jew” and “Jew Hating” are vulgar in and of themselves and, I would think, the term “anti-Semitic” would be a much more appropriate phrase for someone as offended as you by intolerance of any kind. Glossing over your apparent objection to a church being pro-Nation of Islam, I would like to pose this final question to you: If you have a problem with anti-Semitism and “anti-white” sentimentality, do you also object to “anti-black” sentimentality? And, if the answer to that question is “yes” then would you be so kind as to tell me why you would much sooner support a candidate that PERSONALLY opposed the creation of “Martin Luther King Day” than a candidate who’s PASTOR espouses certain questionable beliefs?


  265. pleaforrationality said,

    August 28, 2008 @ 4:32 am

    Bloodthirsty Liberal,
    My mention of fascism was really just an afterthought that I didn’t intend to go into, although after reading your reply I did read the wikipedia entry for it and noticed that it does state “Fascism opposes classical liberalism and communism” and that “Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, populism, collectivism, statism, social interventionism, and economic planning.” While I see that there is a form of populism inherent in it, many of the components (like militarism, authoritarianism, and dictatorship) would be antithetical to the green party. I think we would both agree that it is a term that is used a little too lightly (although I did hear someone comment that China is really more of a fascist dictatorship today than a communist country and that seems to make sense).

    As for Obama’s views, I understand your disgust with some comments that have come from his church (I do not for one second tolerate any form of racism or bigotry) but I can’t simply assume that those comments represent Obama’s views. Since neither of us can enter his head this is simply a matter of opinion at the moment and not an argument that can be truly “won” by either side.

    On the other hand, with his views on Iraq, I think it would be more appropriate to say that Bush has become more similar to Obama. Also, my understanding was that while he said he would end the war as soon as possible, from an early point he was intelligent enough to not stick his head in the sand and say he would simply remove troops right away and said he would listen to commanders on the ground.

    As for FISA, I was upset he voted for the bill, but that doesn’t mean he is for it. It was a compromise he made, but I do wish he had taken a tougher stand and not voted for it (I’m not happy with everything he does and I don’t think he is the messiah).

    The campaign finance really is a non-issue. What is the point of finance reform? The point is to not have large contributions from single interests (i.e. corporations) that can control a candidate. His contributions were largely from individual citizens so this wasn’t a problem. Also, he knew that the RNC and special interest groups would be able to outspend him with negative ads (not coming directly from McCain and therefore not part of public finacing) because they do get large donations from corporate America because these corporations do not want a democrat in the White House. So, if he had agreed he would just have been handicapping himself without any great moral gain. It is clear to me that we aren’t going to agree on Obama, but from hearing your views I have serious doubts that you were really a supporter of Hillary (who I also would have supported if she was the candidate).

  266. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 28, 2008 @ 6:04 am

    To David,

    You address my co-blogger, Aggie, but I’m confused by a couple of things:

    If Cindy McCain’s father knocked off reporters, as you allege, the “whoremedia” sure does a good job of covering it up. I just skimmed three accounts of the man’s life and saw no mention of such a crime, in spite of all the other “colorful” incidents in his life so widely chronicled (from bootlegging to winning the Distinguished Flying Cross in WWII).

    You can’t be serious in comparing McCain’s opposition to the establishment of MLK Day as a national holiday—in which he had a lot of company—and Jeremiah Wright’s raving, hateful orations—in which I hope he has less. I’m going to be charitable and let you quietly withdraw that one. (BTW, McCain came around on MLK Day, and was influential in seeing it passed both in Arizona and nationally).

    Well, one thing about Wright. “Questionable beliefs”? “Outrageous viewpoints”? You’re describing Tom Cruise, not Jeremiah Wright. Crack open a thesaurus and work a little harder.

    You’re not troubled by Obama stealing elections because that’s what the big boys like JFK do. Okay, fine. Not exactly a refutation, so we’ll just agree to disagree.

    Lastly, you are troubled by the vulgar terms “Jew-hating” and “anti-Jew”, suggesting we stick with “anti-Semitic”. Really, that’s a matter of style: some of us prefer shorter, Germanic words to polysyllabic, Latinate ones. I just wish you were as troubled by Wright’s language as you were by ours. “Jew-hating” is vulgar because Jew-hating is vulgar.


  267. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 28, 2008 @ 7:26 am


    I really feel the need to educate you about fascism, especially since the word does get tossed around so much by the Left. The Left uses it whenever they disagree with somebody. You reference Wikipedia. Wikipedia is written by whomever has the time, as you know. It is not particularly authoritative. I strongly suggest that you take the time to study this, especially Hitler’s Beneficiaries. The author is one of the top, perhaps the top, holocaust scholar of our time, absolutely respected. And he goes into a deep look at the mechanisms of fascism. It is truly important to understanding what has happened since. I am bothering to reply to you at this level because you seem bright and educated. Wikipedia is not a great source for anything, except looking for dates, quotes, the easy stuff. But even wiki did lay it out in a way: “nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, populism, collectivism, statism, social interventionism, and economic planning”… i.e. nationalism = ethnic population and replaces “worker”, dictatorship is part of both communism and fascism, populism is an underlying feature of fascism, social interventionism refers to re-distribution of the wealth,which was accomplished by the Nazis by murdering their non-ethnic population and taking their assets and by invading other nations and plundering their assets, and economic planning is, obviously, integral to communism and fascism. So wiki didn’t lie; they simply obfuscated. They didn’t describe those attributes and how they interconnect.

    Quickly, Obama attended that church for 20 years. He named his book Audacity of Hope after a saying in one of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. He gave an interview to the religion reporter of the Chicago Tribune in 2004 in which he stated that he attended Trinity every single Sunday at 11:00, same seat and that Wright is a mentor, etc. That later got published in a book about religion and political leaders, but the interview was still on line not long ago. Obama just says whatever works in the moment and he is so charismatic that people cover for him.

    Your final points go to the “people will cover for him because he is charismatic” category. He certainly came around to Bush’s viewpoint on Iraq and not the other way around. Obama famously said that the surge will not work. He said we should leave Iraq, even if we leave a genocide. Yes, he said that to an AP reporter in the summer of 07. That speaks to both his ethics (Wright) and to how far he has moved on Iraq.

    FISA matters and so does his lie about campaign financing. I am quite confident these things mattered more to you and others on this board until the moment when you realized that Obama lied about them. Then it became necessary to stop caring about it because of the dissonance that would set in otherwise. Oh, and look up his contributor base, which was written about recently in the NY Times. True, he has received many small contributions, but the bulk of the money… the overwhelming bulk… comes from hugely wealthy contributors. The impression that his campaign is financed by the little guy is yet another Obama lie.

    – Aggie

  268. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 28, 2008 @ 7:36 am


    I think BTL did a great job of responding in my absence, but just want to second the part about Jew hatred. Jew hatred is a perfectly good description of Jew hatred, meaning the hatred of Jews. Antisemitism means the same thing. I think it is interesting that it bothers you and have noticed this from people before who are trying to minimize the Jew hatred that is so common among Leftists, here and in Europe. The truth hurts. Instead of shooting the messenger, why not try to eradicate the nauseating hatred in parts of your community?

    Also, I don’t believe I ever mentioned anything about anti-black sentimentality. Did you pull that out of the ether? Are you attempting to minimize the Jew hatred of the Left, to excuse the idea that Obama spent 20 years, Sunday after Sunday, listening to a virulent anti-Semite rant about his hatred of Jews, whites, Italians, the US government, the middle-class… and who knows what else? And all Obama can say is… gee… my grandmother is a typical white person, this isn’t the Reverend Wright I knew, etc. You believe that?

    – Aggie

  269. COUGAR08 said,

    August 28, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

    It’s great to see someone finally gets it.

    For the past 18 months the Main Stream Media (MSM) has been so busy feeding the Obamachiavellians grapes, or focusing on the angry shouts of a bunch of fringe dwellers paid for by McCain, that they’re ignoring the real voices of America: Everyone who is Caucasian, Old, Ugly, Grumpy, and Ain’t Republican.

    It’s time the COUGARs take the Democratic party back! No more sitting quietly on the sidelines while all this reverse-sexism, reverse-racism, reverse-misogyny, and reverse-elitism is thrown in our faces!

    It’s not about race, it’s not about age, it’s not about looks, it’s not about emotions, and it’s not about politics. It’s about knowing who you can trust to lead you to where this country needs to go. Sure, “Barack Obama” has “policies.” But if you ask me, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to be a true patriotic american politician if you actually gained what you call “experience” by just working with welfare queens and disenfranchised black voters in some inner city. Most of America is nothing like the world Barack Obama comes from, and until he realizes that we’re going to keep fighting the good fight.

  270. Bill said,

    August 28, 2008 @ 5:12 pm


    50 Grand?

    PUMA can’t even raise enough to buy a house. FAIL.

  271. David said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 12:33 am

    Now now…my objection is to the TERM “Jew hatred” — as you might tell from my name, I’m of the Semitic persuasion myself.

    But that aside. My question, which I believe you avoided by insinuating (unjustifiably, mind you) that I was somehow trying to minimize the “Jew hatred of the left” (there’s that phrase again, by the way), is this: if you have a problem with Obama’s CONNECTION to discriminatory practices then how can you justify supporting McCain who not only has the connection but PERSONALLY opposed the creation of a federal holiday to commemorate M. L. K. Jr.?

    But even THAT aside! I am still eagerly awaiting a response on my point about Roe v. Wade. If all else fails, if you decide to sidestep, reject, or flat-out ignore my comments about anything and everything else, I would like to hear your take on the issue of a conservative SCOTUS and what it would mean for, among other things, women’s rights.


  272. Brian said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 3:50 pm

    This is insane. Why so much anger? If some of you spent as much time and effort helping to better your communities as you do being angry and perpetuating hopeless political protests; then maybe you could help effect some of the social change that hillary represents.
    How many young women in the world facing challenges benefit from the time you’ve spent being angry?

  273. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 4:19 pm


    You represent the confusion of the Typical Obama Voter. We do work on our communities. However, misogyny is not helpful to any community, anywhere. We don’t “spend our time being angry”. We work, raise families, the whole thing. Do African Americans “spend their time being angry rather than helping their communities”? Would it ever in a million years occur to you to write to a group of them suggesting that they are 1. insane 2. angry and 3. lazy?

    Of course not. But you feel no hesitation writing that to us. There is a word for that, Brian. Misogyny. That was evident in the primaries, throughout the media, the Obama campaign and the DNC.

    I am thrilled with the choice of Sarah Palin as VP. I am so excited to vote for McCain-Palin 2008!

    – Aggie

  274. sigh said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 4:20 pm

    bloodthirsty liberal, may I ask a truly genuine question to you (not trying to be argumentative for an arguments sake), but can you please explain to me exactly how not supporting Obama (or supporting John Mccain) is beneficial to your cause, and your concerns (especially if, as your name suggests, your agenda can be summed up as “liberal”)?

  275. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

    It might become a bit clearer if you read the rest of the site, Sigh, but you can start with this page, Why Bloodthirsty, Why Liberal? If you have more specific questions after that, we would be happy to answer them.

    BTW, there are two of us: I, the eponymous Bloodthirsty Liberal, and my co-blogger, Aunt Agatha (Aggie). We have slightly different takes, but I think we complement and compliment each other very well.

    Hope you like what you find here.


  276. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

    Yes, sigh, you can. I’ll break it down into parts.

    1. What is a liberal? Does it imply voter fraud, misogyny, antisemitism, hatred of whites, Italians and the US government? Does it involve trashing rural Americans or one’s own grandmother? Does it imply knowing that your brother lives in a plywood box on less than $1 per month but refusing to help him out? Does it seem like liberal behavior to attend a church where the minister is shrieking from the pulpit about how the US government spread AIDS to the black community? That isn’t liberal; it is insane. The Obama campaign does not represent what is truly liberal.

    2. My causes are varied. I am for respect for all people – even women, even conservatives. I am also strongly pro-Israel. I want a healthy military because I saw September 11th and remember it vividly. I’ve also come to understand over the years that no candidate perfectly reflects my opinions. I am a moderate/conservative Democrat, but, sadly, the party has been clear that they don’t want us any longer.

    In short, I try to avoid crazy, first of all, and then choose someone close to my own perspective. You cannot underestimate the the impact that Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers have had on my decision. The craziness of today’s DNC frightens me. I mean that honestly.

    – Aggie

  277. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 5:51 pm

    Hey! What are your thoughts on Sarah Palin?
    Just curious.

  278. Josh said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

    What is wrong with you people. Crybabies: why dont you get a flipping clue, you bunch of hilbilly’s dumbasses. You can vote for McCain, but dont cry when the world and the economy are in the shitter. So in short term, why dont you get a clue and stop sniffing gas fumes. A true dem. will always back the party of Kennedy, and we support them even through tough decisions. go vote for McCain and when your civil liberty’s are out the damn window. Have fun you ass holes

  279. Nae said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 8:34 pm

    i can’t believe how many utterly delutional women are out there. All of you women who are not going to vote for Barack are showing every man in this world that you don’t know how to vote on the issues but lead with your heart. If Hillary were like most of you she would have never made it as far as she did. You have proven millions of men right in their minds that women should not vote let alone lead. So while you sit on the sidelines bitter and pouting you can suffer through another 4 years of misery. Don’t complain about rising costs because you assisted in putting McCain in office. Some of you talk about being strong and independent well guess what at the end of the day you can pat yourself on the back as John McCain and his female VP appoint new justices to the Supreme Court and overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Way to go thanks alot.

  280. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 29, 2008 @ 9:52 pm

    To Nae and Josh,

    You are unable to see why we won’t vote for Obama because your attitude is a big part of the problem. Call us hillbillies. Call us dumb asses. Please. Keep it up. You are advertisements for the McCain campaign.

    – Aggie

  281. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 30, 2008 @ 8:36 am


    The more I read about her and see her the better I like her. I am delighted.

    – Aggie

  282. Nae said,

    August 30, 2008 @ 11:37 am

    Again, don’t complain when the country is further in the toilet. Don’t complain when more jobs are shipped overseas. You are so narrow minded that you can’t see the big picture. McCain’s VP choice will have all women back in the stone ages. Where women were going in back allies because they had no choice. It is not about Obama it is not about Hillary. It is about the core values that they represent. I love Hillary and I think she is a great role model for all women. She didn’t win so, I must move past that and do what will help my family. I look to my childs future and I don’t want that destroyed any more than it has already. I can’t afford to be bitter and allow McCain get in office so that he can destroy this country even further.If I sit back and either vote for him or don’t vote at all I am going to go against everything I believe in. McCain is 73 years old has battled cancer and I am not confident that if he dies in office that a women who has never had any experience in politics outside being Mayor of a small town and Govenor for a year is ready to lead. It is my understanding she has never even been out of the country so that gives her no foreign policy experience. I am not going to vote for someone just because of gender or race.

  283. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 30, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

    Further in the toilet??? As in recent GDP of 3.3%? Destroyed future? I just think that the US is the envy of the world in almost any measure you come up with. Medical, Educational, Diversity, Economy, cultures, the whole thing. I am so proud of McCain for bringing an intelligent, young, hard-working woman into national prominence. My values are reflected in this choice. And the antithesis of my values are the Jew hatred, America hatred, white hatred, paranoia expressed by the choices that Obama has made throughout his adult years. Can you imagine if McCain had sat for 20 years in a KKK church or something? Would you be saying… oh, he didn’t know… oh, you don’t understand…?

    Also, you’ve got your facts f’d up, as befits the Typical Obama Supporter. Palin has been governor of Alaska for two years, not one, and has an approval rating above 80%! She ran a commercial fishery, she is raising five kids, one of them disabled, and she was a commander in the Coast Guard. She has a very impressive resume. Obama has spent his time working Chicago Machine Politics, getting the opposition thrown off the ballot, and hanging out with criminals like Rezko, racists like Wright, and terrorists like Ayers.

    You are going to vote for somebody “just because of race”. Obama would never, ever have been at the top of the Democratic ticket if he wasn’t black.

    – Aggie

  284. P. Henry said,

    August 30, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

    I didn’t like Hillary at first, but by the latter part of the primary she had began to grow on me. So, please bare in mind that I am not a Hillary hater by any means. Plus I felt the loss and the pain of her not winning and you have to like somebody to feel that.

    And she sure knows how to bounce back, because she was stunning at the Convention and I commend her. She was awesome!

    So, I am trying to understand this great divide in our party. Your fight sounds more like a personal fight, for a personal person, for a Personal Political Party just for “Hillary Clinton”. Rather then the Party we signed -up for which is ” The Democratic Party” with over 72 million registered members and growing.

    Our goal it to fight for the Party not the Person, so to speak, because that brings on divisions and that’s how we become divided.

    Now I’m a fan of Hillary’s. But ….The only person I put that much faith in …..Is GOD.

    Now would you fight that hard for him?

  285. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 30, 2008 @ 5:34 pm

    P. Henry,

    I’m not all about “the Party” (that sounds like something out of Russia). I’m all about democracy. And I’m against racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc. The hatred that the dems displayed via Obama’s pals just will not do. So, I’ll vote for McCain this time and next time, maybe, maybe, maybe the Democrats will get their act together and give us a truly inclusive, respectable party that I can be proud to vote for.

    – Aggie

  286. elaine griffith said,

    August 31, 2008 @ 12:53 am

    I too am upset about this election. i will vote for obama but after this i am thinking about withdrawing from the democratic sect. this is all about a black candidate and nothing else. people talk about what happened to hillary while she was constantly bashing obama, disrespecting him and giving cues for his assassination. I am really afraid for him. I mean really afraid.
    I am a woman but the way you some of you acted because hillary lost makes me think woman should not be in these positions. we are sore loosers and throw tantrums
    it is an insult to obama to say that sarah palin is more experinced than he is. why are we attacking every ones work be it large or small? Furthermore they say shes a strong christian evangelical. Well i teach bible
    principles all the time and not one time did i see
    scriptures in the bible that say we should all be
    gun toting christians. was that a machine gun i saw her with?
    not one time did i see jesus saying we should
    attack a country that did nothing to us.
    and for all of you preachers that preach love on sunday and teach people to hate obama on monday, the word said “go ye into all the world and preach the gospel”

  287. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 31, 2008 @ 6:55 am

    Hi Elaine,

    My gut reaction to your post is that you’re not a woman and that you’re just writing that drivel to try to shame people into voting for O’Messiah. But, that is your right.

    – Aggie

  288. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    August 31, 2008 @ 7:12 am

    I’m not sure we’ve followed up with the commenters here so concerned about John McCain and women’s rights.

    John McCain has appointed as his second-in-command a woman of relatively few but very impressive achievements. She is smart, ideologically solid, sure of herself, unapologetically conservative, and unapologetically feminine in a field and in a state where it would seem masculinity would rule. (As a matter of fact, it did, until she cleaned out the old boys’ network.)

    How do you like him now?

    But we both know what you meant when you said “women’s rights”. You meant abortion. The free and unfettered access to abortion on demand. That inalienable right.

    That one’s a little trickier. Governor Palin, a woman, clearly doesn’t see abortion as a women’s right. We needn’t argue abortion here—the debates are decades old—but we ought to agree that neither side is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. I once supported abortion without question; now my support is riddled with questions, making me useless to a discussion among wild-eyed partisans, but perhaps more realistic in discussing the state of American opinion on the issue.

    But enough from me (for now), and enough about abortion (unless there’s no other topic for you); let’s hear more from you all:

    John McCain and women’s rights: discuss.

  289. CaniceInCA said,

    September 1, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

    Wow. That is my actual thoughts as this discussion has wandered all over the place, to include religion, KKK, guns, abortion, and a myriad of other subjects.

  290. CaniceInCA said,

    September 1, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

    the Democratic Party, my party, had become so obsessed with winning that they will do anything, including subversion of the democratic process in many states. Now today, Labor Day, I find that elsewhere in the blogosphere are rumors regarding Palin and her baby. This isn’t about a personality cult of Hillary supporters- its about the voice of the people being heard and followed, not subverted by a small group of party officials whose votes overrule the will of 18 million voters. Had the Clinton campaign not capitulated to the forces within the hierarchy, an open roll call would have decided the candidate, something George Soros and his ilk did not want to see happen. My bitterness is not that Hillary was ousted, but the way it which the candidate of my party was hand selected by undemocratic processed behind closed doors- something we should all be angry about.

  291. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    September 2, 2008 @ 3:51 pm

    More than two days have passed since we opened the floor to a discussion of John McCain and women’s rights, and all I’ve heard from those of you who are usually are so free with your opinions is crickets. There are nearly 300 comments on this thread, and now all of a sudden you’ve got nothing to say?

    Governor Palin has succeeded as a private business person, as a politician, and not least as a wife and mother. You may not like her politics or her taste for wild game, but you can’t deny that if she were a liberal Democrat, you’d want her installed as the next pope.

    And you can’t get much more real-world than her experience—for which the liberal media is now excoriating her as if she were Cruella De Vil.

    So I ask you again: what do you have to say about John McCain and women’s rights now?

  292. CaniceInCA said,

    September 5, 2008 @ 1:25 am

    Wee hours of September 5, and no one has posted anything here, so i will. I didn’t know anything about Palin, and after her speech the other night, I wasn’t overwhelmed. But I did wonder, and apparently many in the media are now also saying, why did Obama pick Biden who won 9000 votes or something like that, over Clinton who was nearly tied with Obama in the primary races? Certainly she would now have been an asset to counter this wrinkle in the campaign, but who knows.But thats planning a campaign and not womens rights, right? The media criticism over Palin’s family and career underscores the deep vein of double standards applied in this country, particular to a woman aspiring for high office.

  293. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    September 5, 2008 @ 7:19 am

    I think that any woman over a certain age is quite familiar with the general outline of the plot: Trash The Uppity Woman.

    We saw it with Hillary. We saw it with Palin. We have seen it happen all our lives in workplaces across the country. I think that the only way to change it is to stand up to it in a way that can’t be missed.

    – Aggie

  294. CaniceInCA said,

    September 5, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

    Aggie has hit the nail on the head. Its OK for a woman to work, but…not as an executive, not if she has kids at home, not, not, not. Enough!

  295. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    September 11, 2008 @ 10:45 am

    I have never doubted that John McCain supports women’s rights, with the exception of abortion, and the choice of Sarah Palin absolutely proves it. Now, many will say that the abortion issue is key to women’s rights, and I would not disagree. However, I do not believe that a McCain/Palin presidency would get Roe v Wade overturned. This is merely the Democrat’s version of a scare tactic. Even though Gov. Palin would love to see it go away, even she must realize the majority of women want abortion at some level, to remain an available option. And if the liberal Supreme court justices are so concerned about it then they will just have to work another 4 years. There is no requirement for them to retire, they are appointed for life.

    Back to Gov. Palin…If you told me two years ago that I would be voting for a Republican president with a female, Pro-Life VP I would have laughed my head off. But, here I am, ready to do just that. I have always admired John McCain, and I know he is not another Bush. His choice of Gov. Palin was enough to seal the deal. Even though I do not share her personal positions on what amounts to family values, I do think she has the best interests of this country at heart and I think she would be a fighter for change. She’s proven that she can clean out those smoke-filled back rooms in Alaska and I believe she is capable of doing the same in Washington. I would rather give John McCain and Sarah Palin a shot at four years then Nobama and a long-term, fully entrenched Washington insider like Joe Biden.

  296. CoyoteWaits said,

    September 11, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

    Lookbeneaththesuface: McCain does not support women’s rights. You don’t believe McCain’s website says he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and he has pledged to appoint justices like Scalia to do just that. It is extremely likely that the next president will have the chance to appoint at least one and maybe two Supremes. Palin a reformer? That’s a laugh. She worked tirelessly to get MORE earmarks for Alaska (McCain said after the Minnesota bridge collapse that the money spent on the “bridge to nowhere” that Palin supported might have been used to repair the MN bridge and saved those lives); she chiseled money from the state of Alaska by such things as claiming “per diem” for days she was at her home, not traveling, (and per diems for her entire family, too); she shuns or punishes those who disagree with her (sound familiar?); and she’s utterly ignorant, e.g. she said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had become too expensive for the taxpayers, when in fact Fannie and Freddie were PRIVATE until a couple of days ago, when the “free-market” Administration decided to spend taxpayer money to bail them out. Joe Biden may be a Washington insider, but years of foreign policy experience might be a good thing to have, instead of a pair of hot-headed ignoramuses like McCain and Palin.

  297. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    September 11, 2008 @ 2:44 pm


    You’ve put together an interesting compilation of scare tactics and outright falsehoods.

    People should vote for whomever they want, but the level of discourse in our country is so primitive these days that I am actually wondering if it will eventually threaten the cohesiveness of our nation. I hope not.

    – Aggie

  298. CaniceinCA said,

    September 13, 2008 @ 10:10 pm

    CoyoteWaits – Your comment is inaccurate.
    There has been much debate and even more speculation about how funds for the Bridge to Nowhere were first provided, Congress’s role in changing the nature of the funding, and the various options the state of Alaska had to build the bridge. The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.” SOURCE: Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW)

    Freddie and Fannie are “private” sort of. “The Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have operated since 1968 as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This means that, although the two companies are privately owned and operated by shareholders, they are protected financially by the support of the Federal Government. These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. In the event that there was some sort of financial collapse within either of these companies, U.S. taxpayers could be held responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars in outstanding debts. The quasi-government corporation’s impact on the mortgage finance industry is immense and often draws fire from private sector competition.
    ” Source: George Mason University and the US Treasury
    And like it or not, the Alaska Statae Auditor has stated the per diem payments were legal.

    So I don’t think that makes Sarah Palin the one that’s ignorant of the facts. Vote for whomever you want to, its a free country, but don’t try to put forward arguements based on opinion when the facts would do.

    Your assertion that McCain supports overturning Roe Vs Wade is accurate; his web site says that “Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. “

  299. S Arapahoe Peak said,

    September 18, 2008 @ 9:22 am

    Hi ALL Thoughtful & Concerned Democrats:

    I couldn’t support Sen. Clinton due to her involvement with the fa*ci*t DC group known as The Family or The Fellowship (see the always excellent Barbara Ehrenreich in the 9-07 “Mother Jones” – what a massive disappointment Hillary has proved to be, not to mention how the votes in Harlem weren’t counted after the NY primary)!

    I ask that all Democrats pull together and donate: canvassing time with your local Democratic Party HQ, money & ensure that EVERYONE you know gets a mail-in ballot to vote a straight DEMOCRATIC ticket to clinch the BIGGEST election victory for this party’s history since 1932 & secure a viable future for this planet!



  300. Jennifer said,

    September 19, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

    I see no liberals voting for McCain; I see only closeted Republicans dressed up like Democrats and liberals, claiming some past connection to Hillary Clinton. No real liberal would ever vote for a GOP conservative who left his crippled wife for some harlot he met at a bar. Sorry but this anger, this misplaced idea of “getting back” at the establishment by voting for McCain is simply the stupidest thing I have ever heard. As a true liberal Hillary Clinton was too moderate for me but I liked her enough to back her. And McCain is, frankly, a lying, sniveling worm who doesn’t deserve to be in the same room with decent people.

    As to the folks here, I am shocked, simply shocked, at the behavior of most of you. Half of you are racists, hiding behind some bullshit notion that Obama is the big, bad wolf out to destroy us all. And Aggie, I don’t know what your problem is but it’s pretty clear that you sure do have one. As a woman I am sick to death that you are even classified as female. You make me sick. I’ll pray that you get help and I’ll pray that you get over lying to everyone about your true political colors: that you are a moderate/conservative, not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Don’t worry, I’m not ever coming back in here to post or read anything you people put into this trash heap you call a website. But I will thank you all for one thing: you have made me realize that I must vote for Obama, the one person I never thought I would vote for. You have swung my vote to the Obama camp and I will now work very hard to ensure that this man makes it into office, just so I can help crush you people. Then all of you can get the hell out of my party and join the GOP, like you’re obviously intent on doing as it is. For any of the sane, not-psychotic people on this blog – Help defeat PUMA by voting for Obama in 08!

  301. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    September 19, 2008 @ 5:00 pm


    My favorite thing about Obama supporters is how much they hate and vilify those of us who disagree with them. If we don’t toe the line, we’re not even women???? Doesn’t that strike you as nuts? Trust me, it is nuts.

    My second favorite thing about Obama supporters is how much they lie to themselves and to the rest of us, apparently without noticing. See how Jennifer starts out telling us that Hillary was too moderate for her, but she would have supported her? Well, that was paragraph 1. In paragraph 2, she’s telling us that she never thought she could have supported Obama but now she does and she hopes that we PUMAs all become Republicans! That’s logic.

    I don’t see myself becoming a Republican but I am going to vote for McCain-Palin this time. If the Left can’t get a handle on their rudeness, they might just get their wish: more Republicans, taken from the ranks of moderate Dems.

    – Aggie

  302. Heather Merritt said,

    September 20, 2008 @ 6:52 pm


  303. CaniceinCA said,

    September 20, 2008 @ 8:21 pm

    Anyone care to explain how making a choice to not vote for Obama makes one a psychotic,insane ,racist and Republican in one fell swoop, and apprently can lead to a challenge as to gender as well? I know why i will vote McCain, and its not because I think he is the greatest, but compared to the Obama/Biden team ….how is more tax and spend Change I Can Beleive In?
    Sorry, the news of late only reinforces my decision, and the hope that in ’12, Hillary runs again (and doesn’t get cheated).

  304. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    September 20, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

    Agreed. It is kind of funny that in their fury, the O-bots can only spit out something lame like: You’re not a woman!! It reminds me of a little kid I used to know who, when he got furious with someone, would sputter: You Cabbage Head!

    PUMA’s, we’ve all been called Cabbage Head by the two year old crowd.

    – Aggie

  305. Lookbeneaththesurface said,

    September 26, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

    I for one am proud to be a CABBAGE HEAD!

  306. B said,

    October 24, 2008 @ 1:02 pm


    Obama selling election spots to media

    [quote]Media analyst Bob Knight is questioning the Obama campaign’s decision to sell Chicago election night coverage packages to news outlets.

    Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet notes the Obama campaign is planning to charge reporters $935 for a package that includes access to a heated file tent, power, cable TV, Internet, and food. The cheapest place a reporter could stand on a riser with a view is $880. Members of the media will also be charged $300 for an unlimited long distance phone line and $275 for high-speed wired Internet.

    According to Sweet, “This is an outrageous pay-to-play plan that caters to national elite outlets with deep pockets.” Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute, agrees.

    “Some folks might feel that this shows that Obama doesn’t believe in a free press, but one he would charge for,” he says, chuckling. “Really, it’s kind of funny because the media have done so much to boost his candidacy that you’d think the least he could do is give them a few hors d’oeuvres on the night of his coronation, if he is elected.”[/quote]

  307. Ken in KY said,

    October 29, 2008 @ 11:12 pm

    I wish you guys well. Hillary was done in by the Democrat party leadership and her supporters were physically intimidated at caucuses. The only way to send a message to the Democrat party leadership is to vote for McCain.

    My family was split. Some supporting Hillary some supporting McCain (if they made it to the general). If Hillary won, some of the people leaning to McCain could have been talked into supporting her, but NEVER Obama! But after seeing what was done to Hillary and her supporters none of my family will EVER vote for Obama.

    The whole nominating process of the Democrat party needs to be changed. And all the things that Obama’s people did during the primary needs to come out. Notice how the media turned on Hillary because they already had a candidate named Obama, and they didn’t report the incidents. The media likewise turned on McCain. He used to be their darling, but no more. The media is so unprofessional they are practically an Obama PR agency.

    Vote McCain in 08, and allow Hillary to run again in ’12.

  308. Tom (Independent from NY) said,

    November 6, 2008 @ 8:39 pm

    The election is over with and we have a new president. We need to get behind our newly soon elect president. Time to put differences aside and let bygons be bygons. Alot of people that have lost jobs including myself who does not have health care and cannot meet my basic needs could careless if McCain got in, Clinton or Obama. I am happy its over and we have a good man. I believe the better days are ahead, look to the sky and smile, were entering a new era that will benefit our country in the long run. Finally it feels good to be an American, democracy has survived. This whole nonsense of what was going on, is what I mentioned, nonsense. Like Obama was saying, were not red, blue, republican or democrat, its not the divided states of America, but the United States of America, a very strong statement from a very gifted man.

  309. Tom (Independent from NY) said,

    November 6, 2008 @ 8:48 pm

    Finally to add on one note, to those people who feel that the media played unfair to the Clintons, or if the Obamas played hardball and unfair, sorry folks, I do not fully agree at all. Its called politics, get over it. Hillary messed up and had many chances to redeem herself and just did not and could not. Just like how the Clintons played hardball on their opponents and did what it took to win in the 1990s and 2000s, the same goes with Obama and his team. McCain had the same amount of chances to win and just blew it. Obama is one smart man that is on top of his game and probally preparred for this run. Its only human nature to compete for the top prize. Look at any of your sports competitions. The winners always prepare while the losers play and wait the last minute and don’t look all around them till their ambushed. Obama has his chance to redeem himself with those who still oppose him, bottom line is, you can either go with the change, or change is going to bypass you. Pure and simple.

  310. Roy said,

    November 9, 2008 @ 4:45 am

    Ahhh Yesss! Election Day has come and passed! And your new president it BARACK OBAMA! And he won by a landslide (like I said from the very beginning)! He kicked McCain and Palin’s ass…case closed! So, how does it feel to have switched parties and voted for a loser? Sour grapes you say? That’s OK; it’s just a bitter-sweet victory that we all can enjoy. And with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, all of the ‘true democrats’ who supported the winning ticket will bask in the change that is coming for our nation. Three downfalls for McCain: Bush, the economy, and Palin! As long as Palin kept opening her mouth I knew Obama would win. I know it’s like a nightmare that you just can’t wake up from! But here is the part that is going to be, Oh-so-sweet: he’s going to do such a good job with his new administration in his first term – that he’s going go get re-elected in 2012! And you can mark that on your calendars! Can anyone say, “Hail to the Chief?”

  311. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    November 9, 2008 @ 6:22 am

    To paraphrase the corrupt old Texas legislator, Roy, you seen your chances to gloat and you took ‘em. Good for you; that’s your right.

    Of course, it also makes you a dickhead—and I say that without rancor. It’s just a fact. A Martian who might have intercepted your comment while searching for Pamela Anderson’s wedding video would have found your crowing and preening obscene and vulgar. But, again, entirely your right.

    Enjoy your day, Roy, and be glad you’re a man (I obviously use that term loosely). Spare a thought for those women abused by Team Obama—Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and now Nancy Reagan—and do your meager best to understand that those who do not share your elation this day may have cause.

    Here’s hoping he does do a good job, and that he deserves the re-election you predict. It’s funny, though, that you didn’t mention a single attribute of Obama that contributed to his victory. (Understandable: I can’t think of one either.) So I guess his re-election is a forgone conclusion, as well.

    Hail to the Chief, I guess.

  312. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    November 9, 2008 @ 7:27 am

    I noticed that Obama indicated that he won’t pursue the weapons shield to protect Poland and Western Europe from Russia. I also noted that Europe celebrated his win. I wonder how they’ll feel as Russia threatens them more and more? Will we pull troops out of Germany. Probably. Do I care? No. But I can hear the howling already.

    – Aggie

  313. CaniceinCA said,

    November 11, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

    The election was a referendum on 8 years of the Bush Administration combined with the cult of personality marketing campaign that promoted ambiguous idea of Change we Hope we can Believe In. McCain was fighting the media posed perception that a tired (my gosh, is he also near death? You would be led to think so) VietNam veteran was opposing a fresh set of ideas posed by the selected Democrat nominee.
    Obama is President elect, and we all hope he is up to the challenges he faces, for we all have a stake in this. I just hope people like Roy arent so drunk on media hyped koolaid that when reality smacks his fathead, he will realize politicians like this one really do say most anything to get elected, but then I am one of those cynics that believe the only politician to trust is the one you know is a crook…sooooo.

  314. AtaQuickGlance said,

    November 15, 2008 @ 12:20 am

    Bloodthirsty Liberal,

    You’re clearly a conservative in disguise. Now that the election is over and your pathetic attempts to discredit Obama have failed, why not just admit it?

    The woman you claim to “support” totally disagrees with you and is now most likely going to be Obama’s Secretary of State.

  315. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    November 15, 2008 @ 6:40 am


    I am a feminist and refused to drink the kool aid. I wish Obama all the luck in the world, but he’ll never be my President in the sense that I’ll never support him. That’s ok. Lots of people didn’t like Bush but the country lived through it. This too shall pass.

    – Aggie

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment