I encourage you to express it boldly with this stuff on -

Obviously, I had to check it out for myself. The Columbia grad and former Newsweek intern is obviously more world wide web literate than her father and garners quite a bit of fan mail, apparently, which she posts from time to time.

It would be hard for any self-respecting non-McCain voter to get through these fan letters, but I gave it the good college try. And, since I’m a giver, I thought I’d share with you the interesting tidbits I could cull from these sentiments that will most likely amuse, if not confuse, those of us who do not support McCain and find it difficult to understand why others would.

FYI, the description of the blog is "Musings and Pop Culture on the Political Trail" and she provides her own soundtrack to her experience in the form of Playlists. The list she currently displays is of blues songs that help her when she suffers from insomnia. Personally, I resort to wine - I mean, isn't it just the perfect cure-all?!

I worked hard to get through the Meghan McCain fan mail and the only reward I ask is that you enjoy these samples fully. And, if for some reason, you so wrongfully suspect these emails for fakes - ruses I cooked up in a drunken effort to gain readership - please feel free to access them in their entirety here.

Tim from Houston, Texas writes: Being a Veteran myself and knowing what it takes to be in your fathers shoes, I am completely impressed with how you and your family deal with day to day living while on the trail. I have and always will stand in awe of Senator, soon to be President McCain and all he has been through and what kind of a man he has turned out to be as well as How his daughter has turned out. Very impressive.

Wendy from Bainbridge Island, Washington writes:
Hi Meghan! My name is Wendy. I have been a Democrat all my life and was a Clinton supporter. Now that that does not seem to be a possible option, I am throwing myself 100% behind John McCain and will do everything in my power to assist him in defeating Obama. ...

Lane from Great Falls, Virginia writes: You have inspired me,a young girl, to follow the trail and become interested in the government of our country....which before i thought was impossible!!

Dan from Seattle, Washington writes:
I am extremely impressed with the quality of your playlists. The broad range of your tastes shows that you have a keen ear and sharp intellect. I am an independent voter and know that a man who raises a daughter to enjoy and respect many types of music is worth listening too about many issues.

Andrew from Boston, Massachusetts writes: It sometimes shocks people that Republicans like myself care for (and work for) the environment. Republicans care just as much about the protecting the heritage of their land as anyone (I might argue even more).

Gerald from Columbia, Missouri writes: This has given me the boost I needed to vote for him in the presidential election.

Colleen from Pflugerville, Texas writes: If all of America could read what you write and what your pictures show, there would be do doubt about voting for your father.

Sean from Clovis, New Mexico writes: There is no question that Senator McCain has always put the country we love ahead of partisanship or politics. I have not always agreed with Senator McCain on every little issue, but have always respected the fact that he says what he really thinks, honestly, without pandering. Our generation needs someone like John McCain who inspires us -- the way JFK did our parents -- to "serve a cause greater than self."

Sue from Loudon, New Hampshire writes:
Your site is great! I just bookmarked it. A different perspective on John McCain. I am now planning on backing your dad (I am a former Hillary backer)...

Elizabeth from Coeur d alene, Idaho writes:
Hi there!! Just found your blog and as a former Hillary Clinton supporter, since she's no longer an option to go with, I will be voting for McCain-- I plan to work as hard for him as I did for Hillary. While some views and beliefs are different I believe many are similar—

Jon from Commack, New York writes:
Meghan, I am jealous!!! SONIC advertises on TV, and Cable here in NY, but alas NY has no SONICS!! The next campaign lol should be... WE WANT SONICS IN NY. Peace, Jon

Hope from Little Boston, Pennsylvania writes: Thank you so much for the post about inner beauty. I printed it out and stuck it on my mirror. You're an inspiration to young women everywhere. (:

Will these people really be surprised when Obama wins? Most of the Repubs I know plan on voting for McCain, but know it will almost certainly be an exercise in vain futility.

"First Ask Permission..."

Visit any PUMA blog and we're laughing our asses of at the absurdity that's currently passed off as a political campaign:

• I'm looking through you
• Kiss him goodbye
• even the latest Obama Love which isn't even a PUMA video, but most of us find pretty damn funny

And if Mr. Cafferty had ever actually read a PUMA blog he'd find us laughing through comics like this. But then again, it's a little hard for most people to laugh at themselves.

And that's the sad part. Do I really have to explain the relative nature of humor? Are people actually that dim-witted? Or is this just another effort by the Obamedia to play dumb in order to try and push across some half baked claim.

The truth, Mr. Cafferty, is that we plan on laughing all the way to a McCain victory. The funniest part is that you missed out on one of the most important motivators behind the PUMA mission. It's not just about teaching the DNC a lesson. It is to many of us at least equally important to show the media that they cannot pick our candidate for us. And every time you come out with these attempts to paint us as evil spoil sport bitches, we'll just be more motivated. Because degrading us to achieve your ends is not a tactic we're going to reward. That you think it is, is just plain funny.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that more than four in 10 Democrats still preferred Clinton as the nominee.

That means, what? 6 out of 10 Democrats want Obama - that, dear PUMAists, is a majority!

But even after the primaries the PUMAs still carry this forward? It isn't like Mr Bill stepped down now is it? She has endorsed Obama!

From donors to volunteers, the Obama campaign said that Clinton's supporters have already expressed support for the senator from Illinois.

"Democrats across the country understand how urgently we need change, not four more years of failed Bush policies -- and we've been very pleased that so many who supported Sen. Clinton in the primary have taken active roles in the Obama campaign, organizing, raising money and most importantly, talking to their friends and neighbors about the clear choice in this election," Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

Will the world wake up to a McCain win because of Hillary supporters? Although unlikely it is possible.

They, like John McCain are waiting for a miracle to happen. Hey! John McCain could become really interesting!

The too-perfect to be anything but suspicious piece of evidence comes in the form of a birth announcement in a Hawaii paper that just so happens to announce Barack Obama's birth as occurring on the very same day that he was allegedly born.

The proud PUMA's are about to take this evidence lying down though: they have a twelve point list of suspected shiftiness, and a spirited comment thread of theories and fantasies about this astonishingly irrelevant issue.

Then comes what has to be one of the loopiest sentences in the history of conspiracy theorists:

Jackson, I’m not sure that any info on the COLB is fake, but perhaps the document was set up to appear to be fake, so that we would spend hundreds of hours studying it…

Did you get that? PUMA TexasDarlin is raising the possibility that there was a vast conspiracy to alter authentic documents such that they appear to be fake, all to throw her off the trail of... something. Something embarrassing about his mother.

And that's the truly bizarre part. You'd think with all the overblown rhetoric about Hillary was sabotaged by sexism, these people could find something better to do than spending their days trying to dig up dirt on the private relationships of a young woman living in the still roaringly sexist 60s.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

PUMA is an acronym that stands for "Party Unity My A--." It's the rallying cry for a group of disenchanted Democrats – "PUMAs."

Many are supporters of Hillary Clinton who just can't quite get over the fact that she lost and Barack Obama won.

A humorless group, they accuse the party of rigging the primaries to favor Obama, saying that the DNC unfairly punished Michigan and Florida. Others say Obama isn't qualified enough to be the party's nominee or competent enough to lead the country. But he won, so a majority of Democrats obviously think he is.

Now Clinton called on her supporters to vote for Obama after losing the nomination in June. She is not supporting these PUMAs, and she says the stakes are so high that anyone who voted for her has more in common with Obama than John McCain.

But the PUMAs aren't listening. The head of the group estimates there are 250 PUMA-related web sites and 2.5 million supporters online. They are supposed to hold a conference next month in Washington to plan for the Democratic Convention in Denver in August.

They want Hillary Clinton's name placed in nomination so delegates get a chance to vote. In the "cut off your nose to spite your face" category, we find a bunch of these people who insist that if they aren't successful at the convention – they'll vote for McCain instead of Obama in November.

A recent poll showed more than 4 in 10 Democrats still prefer Clinton as the party's nominee. But, Obama leads McCain in general election polls. And it's likely that as Clinton continues to show her support for Obama, more of her backers will decide to vote for him.

Here’s my question to you: Why do some Hillary Clinton supporters want to derail Barack Obama’s nomination?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Ray from Florida writes:
I think they realize if Obama wins and Hillary isn't on the ticket, she has almost no chance of being president! On the other hand, if he should lose, the Clintons can run again in 2012.

Al from Lawrence, Kansas writes:
The bigger question is "Why doesn't Hillary denounce and reject them?"

Teshome from Haymarket, Va. writes:
Because we believe in Hillary, but thanks to you and your likes she lost the primary. Now, if Obama picks her as a V.P., he will get our vote. If not, John McCain will be the next president.

Susan from Georgia writes:
Republicans in Democratic clothing!

Karen from Tennessee writes:
They are like little children having tantrums, screaming and pounding their fists on the ground, and screaming, "NO! NO! NO!" because Hillary Clinton did not receive the nomination. Sadly, their idol is off somewhere doing exactly the same thing.

Zoe writes:
I am proud to be a “PUMA.” I will hold my nose and vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is. But I have every right to prefer someone else. That doesn’t make me racist, or stupid, or stubborn. It means I think about my vote and the leader I give it to.

Nancy from Jackson, Ga. writes:
Clinton supporters and others who are trying to derail Senator Obama are unhappy with their own lives. Mr. Obama is confident, intelligent, and knows how to galvanize the population. And for that reason, unhappy folk don't get it, but surely you do Jack: Misery loves company.

Tom from Avon, Maine writes:
Not every child in the playground learns to play well with others. We need to increase Head Start funding for the emotionally challenged, who can't get past “I'm taking my ball and going home!"

For all that’s been written about the ”disastrous” Clinton campaign it certainly was miles ahead of the McCain one. The strategy appears to be same – that is the kitchen sink strategy, but McCain’s execution is terrible. If John McCain is trying to dispel the idea that he is a crotchety old man he’s not doing a very good job. Obama’s message doesn’t require the existence of McCain; he rarely brings him up, but McCain’s message is “don’t choose Obama.” I can’t help but think of Statler and Waldorf, the old muppets in the theatre boxes.

Look at this last week:

Michael Goldfarb: "Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"

McCain: "I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Sen. Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

"If he had his way ... we would have had defeat. And my friends that would have been a catastrophe for the United States of America. He was wrong then, he's wrong now and he still failed to acknowledge ... that the surge succeeded."

I also note the ever-changing message as to why we can’t leave Iraq. No matter the success of Obama, and I would say having the Iraqi Prime Minister agree with your withdrawal plan is a success, McCain wants to somehow twist it into a failure. But again, the lack of consistency makes me think of those dang Muppets.

Al-Maliki appeared to back the idea of a timetable in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel over the weekend, but an Iraqi government spokesman said later the prime minister's comments were "misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately." (The magazine has said it "stands by its version of this interview.")

The Bush administration has opposed timetables for troop withdrawals, but al-Maliki and President Bush last week agreed to a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" on troop cuts.

McCain shrugged off the suggestion that Obama's talks with al-Maliki undercut his message.

"It doesn't in the slightest undercut the fact that it's based on the conditions on the ground," he said.

McCain pointed to comments made by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said Sunday that the consequences of Obama's withdrawal plan could be "dangerous."

"I hope [Obama] will pay attention to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly someone who has no military experience whatsoever," McCain said.

It just gets worse.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it really hard to follow or get enthused with anything McCain says. He’s the guy who’s resentful when he doesn’t think of an idea first and so he needs to trash anyone and everyone else’s opinions in order to feel important. How do you get inspired by that?

What’s more interesting is that that is the exact obstinacy that has led to George W. Bush’s abysmal approval ratings. The people don’t want a person that has no ideas of their own, but only seeks to trash everything else. People want leadership. The people want a person who is open to new ideas and resilient. Obstinacy is a fatal flaw of the current administration and I don’t think voters want to return there.

I thought the Republican primary voters had done a good job in choosing McCain. He was the one person I thought that could seem like he wasn’t a Republican while still being one. Sadly (or happily since I support Obama) he’s been an utter disappointment.

Image via www.blazesoftball.com.

“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]

“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03

OBAMA

I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

HILLARY
I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

McCAIN
“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]

“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03

I submit that Barack Obama demonstrated the ability to :

1. Be smart enough to see and understand the big picture regarding the proposed invasion of Iraq in 2002.

2. To organize readily available information. To understand the interaction of factors and their ramifications.

3. To have the common sense to reach the correct conclusionwith out the years of special training and the decades of experience that others had and had reached the wrong conclusion .

This is part of Obama's speech in october 2002.

I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW THAT HE WAS A HOTDOG, RISK-TAKING FLYBOY WHO DESTROYED US NAVY PLANES.

YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW THAT HE WAS A PROFANE, SUPERSTITIOUS COMPULSIVE GAM BLER WITH AN ANGER MANAGEMENT PROBLEM AS A US SENATOR.

Sorry I've been out of touch. With the move and getting set up for the new job, I am one busy PUMA!

One of the things I was stressing about was whether or not I would be able to go to Denver for the convention. It looks like time will be tight, but I can accommodate the trip if I can raise the funds for airfare. I'll arrive late on the 25th and have to leave the morning of the 28th, so I won't be able to report fully on the convention, but I will be there for the two biggest nights, the 26th (Hillary's night, and the 88th anniversary of the 19th Amendment) and the 27th (Obama's night, and the 45th anniversary of MLK's Dream speech). I intend to report from wherever I can get to, whether that be the protests, the media tents, or the convention itself, though admittedly, I have no credentials at this point to get in.

What I am asking of you: I need to raise about $350 post-haste. Generous readers have already deposited $45 into the kitty, so the immediate needs are for $310 or so, to cover the cost of the plane ticket. I have a place to stay, and access to a laptop, and I'm willing to worry about the rest later if P&L readers will help me out now in getting there. I need to make a decision quick, because I have to get one of my new classes covered for one of those days. I'll need to raise in a week, and be able to say one way or the other if I can go by next Wednesday ( a week from today).

I have found the ticket I'd like to buy, and almost booked it anyway today, but decided that paying rent at our new apartment was paramount. And I would have been spending part of the rent money and hoping for a miracle.

If you have any funds left after donating so generously to Hillary or other Clinton groups, please consider a donation here at this time to help fund this, especially if you enjoy what you're reading here and think I might have something to offer in the way of perspective on the convention. You can donate one of two ways: through PayPal of through Amazon. The links to both are to the right.

Thank you so much for even considering it. I know it's a lot to ask, but I do feel that we need to be representing at the Convention, and that we need PUMA-friendly media representatives there. I can provide that. I would be grateful for the opportunity. Thanks in advance!

"I am a woman who was disenfranchised by
my Party during my state's caucus. I petitioned
BEFORE the caucus to have my vote counted
and to be considered a delegate because I was
on BED REST due to preeclampsia and in fact
was IN LABOR during my caucus. The state
decided to dismiss my vote (specifically it was
discarded by a superdelegate who was
pro-Obama). I tried to challenge it at the next
level with the credentials committee and they
dismissed me as well (again pro-Obama). I
feel disenfranchised... and I've heard of so
many other shadey aspects from people I know
about what went down at their precincts.

I now say: JUST SAY NO DEAL to the
DNC!!!

- Anonymous No Dealer

p.s. After several physical threats of violence
and actual vandalism to my car on two
occasions...I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR
OBAMA!!!!!!!

Only 175 delegates need to change their votes to oust Obama as nominee and install Hillary Clinton.  This would leave 160 to go!

This does not come as a surprise on the heels of reports that 8 have decided to switch and that the people on Capitol Hill have become quite upset with the Obama campaign, calling it non-communicative, un-cooperative, and arrogant. (Click Here)  Add that to the fact that Obama has drummed up almost no money for the party, is tied with McCain in a supposed "no way to lose" Democratic year, and has done zero for the people down ticket...  (Click Here) and you have some pretty disgruntled super delegates, not to mention the disgruntled populace re: flip flops on several issues. (Click Here)

If this trend holds true, Obama is in hot water.

Déjà colistier de John Kerry en 2004, John Edwards a déclaré à de nombreuses reprises qu'il n'était pas intéressé par le poste de vice-président des Etats-Unis. Depuis son retrait de la course aux primaires démocrates le 30 Janvier dernier, le sénateur s'était d'ailleurs fait fort discret, apportant son soutien à Barack Obama face à Hillary Clinton en toute fin de campagne.

Mais selon des proches d'Obama, il semblerait que le nom de John Edwards soit tout en haut de la liste de Caroline Kennedy et d'Eric Holder, les deux personnes chargées de trouver un colistier au sénateur de l'Illinois au sein du parti démocrate. Alors Edwards va t-il se laisser convaincre? Il est vrai que l'idée d'un ticket Obama-Edwards est plus que séduisante et pourrait former un duo imbattable en Novembre prochain. John Edwards peut apporter à Obama sa grande popularité dans le sud des Etats-Unis ainsi qu'au sein de la classe ouvrière. On a vu lors des dernières primaires combien le vote ouvrier semblait délaisser le jeune sénateur noir. L'énergie positive d'Edwards pourrait l'aider à combler son déficit de popularité au sein des classes populaires et à réaliser son rêve de conquérir la maison blanche face au républicain John Mc Cain.

CHEATahs even have their own teeny-bopper girl group!

UPDATE:  H/T to Delphyne for informing me that the CHEATah boy band sensation driving the O-borg astroturfing, "The CHEAT-o Boyz," recently made an appearance at Netroots Nation:

Riverdaughter, if you think this is over the top snark, I'll remove it.

Speaking of CHEATah Girls, Nancy Pelosi gets a bad review by HuffPo's Kathleen Reardon in her article "What Pelosi Doesn't Get About Persuasion,"  (link for source info only, please don't give HuffPo more traffic):

It isn't as if women don't have enough stereotypes to deal with but along comes Nancy Pelosi to tell those who supported Hillary Clinton's nomination that they shouldn't act like poor sports, taking their marbles and going home, if Hillary Clinton isn't chosen by Barack Obama to be his running mate. They should be happy with whoever he picks, according to Pelosi, because more important is party unity and beating John McCain.

While I'm right on board with the need to beat John McCain, party unity is a matter of persuasion, not accusations of insubordination. Berating women who are still supporting for vice president a candidate who won half the Democratic presidential nominee votes and, as Barack Obama says, took us all another step further in breaking through the political glass ceiling, is not the way to persuade them or anyone to vote for Obama. It's counterproductive.

Pelosi should be saying, "Of course supporters of Clinton still hope she'll be chosen. And why wouldn't they given the race she ran?" Complimenting those who still harbor this hope and are doing what they can to make it a reality is a more astute step toward Democratic Party unity than spiteful detractions in the form of stereotypes -- girls who can't take the rough and tumble of the big leagues and let their feelings get in the way.

In fact, it's not only reasonable to have a favorite for vice presidential candidate, I want to know who is on Barack Obama's short list for secretary of state, secretary of defense, secretary of health and human services, secretary of education, attorney general and so on. This should be part of Obama's plan to end the secrecy that has characterized George W. Bush's administration. I want to know what and how these potential presidential advisers think, what they've done well, and not so well. Don't you? And I have some favorites there too. What's wrong with that?

I'd like to hear a little more from Nancy Pelosi about what the Democrats are going to do for consumers who were made homeless by bad loans. How about some informed commentary on immigration, education, poverty, and avoiding having the war in Afghanistan escalate so much that leaving Iraq becomes an even trade in terms of money spent and lives lost?

If you want to persuade people, you don't belittle them or their concerns. You don't lecture them about what they should rather than do think. That's part of Persuasion 101. If you want to persuade, you don't tell people that how they feel is ridiculous. Invalidation is not an effective persuasion strategy. Linking what they care about to a preferred course of action is more productive. And most of all, you don't tell everyone else what they're doing wrong when your record is less than stellar.

 

Well Kathleen, I'm far beyond persuading, and it's not just because of the "sexism" and the "massive-haka-astroturfing-paid-bloggers-driving-the-MSM-narrative" meme.  Why is everyone who has an opinion on PUMA thinking that it's just a "girl thing" or because our feelings are "hurt that our candidate did not win?"

Why aren't journalists and opinion makers like yourself talking about the DNC and RBC violation of fair reflection as the main reason why REAL Democrats won't unite under the Precious' mantle?  THEY CHEATED!!!!  Argh!  When are you going to report that the "presumptious nominee" was selected by vote fraud on May 31st, 2008?   We all saw it on live TV! 

As far as Party Unity goes, well, you know what we think.  Party Unity is DEAD.  Gone.  Kaput.  Pelosi and the CHEATahs can kiss my, er, VOTE goodbye.  Where is it going?  Not sure yet.  It sure won't go to the CHEATahs who devoured Democracy.  When the DNC decides to live up to its party name and elect a candidate without violating the tenets of Democracy, then maybe we'll come back to the fold.   So please stop the "girl thing," will ya?

O/T but important:  Many well wishes to our Texas Conflucians as Hurricane Dolly hits the Texas coastline.  Stay safe & let us know how things are in your area!

That's OK, I forgive her.  We all got a bit rash last month.  In the midst of the RBC "shock and awe", we lost our focus.  Some PUMAs *are* going to vote for McCain-- if they have no suitable alternative.  But we are back to calmly, rationally pursuing more productive avenues before the convention.  Our objective now is to have Hillary's name in nomination at the convention so her delegates can vote for her.  And here is where Ms. Bartoshevich's spontaneous remark may be a bit problematic.

It turns out that the Wisconsin Democratic Party would like to decertify Ms. Bartoshevich.  I am sure that Debra regrets not checking her mouth with her mental policeman but now is not the time to think about how we might address the issue in the future.  Now is the time for all good PUMAs to come to the aid of their delegate.

Read and respond:

BREAKING NOW:
Quote FROM Debra Bartoshevich...
"The Wisconsin Democratic Party is holding a conference call THIS FRIDAY, July 25, to make a decision about whether to allow me to retain my status as a Hillary Clinton delegate to the Democratic National Convention in August in Denver."

BACKGROUND: The Wisconsin DNC is telling Debra she will lose her delegate status. She is fighting so she can vote for Hillary @ the convention. Please help Debra by immediately contacting the Democratic Party Chair and ask them to stop rigging this process by punishing someone simply for supporting Hillary Clinton:

Joe Wineke, DP Chair
The Democratic Party of Wisconsin
222 W. Washington Ave.  Suite 150
Madison, Wisconsin 53703

CALL: (608 ) 255-5172
FAX: (608 ) 255-8919
EMAIL: party@wisdems.org

In one of the throw-a-away "GAY" rags, there was a report that during an OUTFEST (Gay Film Festival) panel discussion on Senator Barack Obama, Democrats complained that the presidential candidate was moving towards the "middle".

Not unlike the mainstream press, the gay media took that cue when Obama was inclined to vote "yes" on a waiver for Telecommunications companies (that would exonerate them from allegations of wrongdoing in any criminal proceedings) who were involved in the illegal government wiretaps at the height of the terrorist threats.

On the heels of the discussion, a handful of "gay dems" lamented they're tinkering with the idea of voting for John McCain this fall.

In response, California Senator Kuehl (Dobie Gillis) allegedly scowled,

"You tell 'em, they'll do whatever Hillary fu**in' well tells 'em to do."

Ms. Kuehl, unlike your "Zelda-ites" - who obviously fall into line when you bark orders - intelligent democrats follow the beat of a different drummer.

In fact - I am inclined to hazard a guess - that it is best for the Democratic party to take a line of action that is the opposite of whatever Hillary offers up.

After all, Barack Obama is the "future".

Hillary and her cronies are political dead-beats relegated to the past!

Kuehl, mouth like truck driver...

“It would obviously be historic, and it could really balance the ticket, what with McCain’s embarassing lack of hair below the cervical vertebrae,” said mullet-American activist Billy Rae Cyrus.

Still reeling from the political demise of skullet-American Jesse Ventura and fem-mullet-American Hillary Clinton, mulleteers continue to claim Pawlenty as one of their own, despite allegations that he has recently scaled back on the party side of his mullet.

“Look, we understand that candidates have to ‘run to the middle’ in the general election," said actress Florence Henderson. “Even I’ve had to moderate under pressure from the mainstream manes running the major studios. But we know Pawlenty will do the right thing once he gets in the White House.”

Mullet-Americans were once a proud and influential group in the 1980s, led by the likes of Ziggy Stardust, MacGyver, Michael Bolton, and Luke from General Hospital. But more recently, an ugly wave of mulletism pushed them into the margins of society.

“Great Clips has actually refused me service, and the ACLU just laughed about it,” said one mullet-American, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, due to fear for his safety. “It’s very emotional to think that some day I might see someone who looks like me attending obscure funerals and being appointed to toothless commissions.”

To understand the tremendous obstacles Pawlenty faces as he attempts to break through what many say is the highest and hardest glass ceiling, consider the hate speech directed at the mulleted minority: “Hockey hair, ten ninety, helmet hair, coupe Longueuil, haircut o' death, neckwarmer, shorty longback, the 10-90, the Kentucky waterfall, the bi-level, the faded glory, the Ben Franklin, the Missouri Compromise, the Louisiana Purchase, the Camaro crash helmut, the business cut (business in front, party in the back), the LPGA, the soccer flip, the convertible, the Tennessee top hat, the Mississippi mudflap, the Canadian passport, the New Jersey neckwarmer, the Chattanooga choo choo, and the neck blanket." Perhaps the ultimate insult to Minnesota's Governor, the proud mullet is sometimes even referred to as "the Wisconsin waterfall."

Though fossil records prove that homo sapiens with primative mullets have walked the Earth for at least 130,000 years, it was 2001 before the word “mullet” even appeared in dictionaries. The historical implications of a Pawlenty candidacy are not lost on beleaguered ape drape advocates.

“I do get emotional about it,” said Cyrus, whose own hind-heavy tresses have been referred to by mulletist hate groups as The Achy-Breaky Mistakie. “They can call us what they want, but come January, let’s just say there is going to be Pawlenty of hair facing east on the inaugural stage.”

- Loveland

"Systemic racism is a form of racism that's entrenched in institutions. Some argue that it's the primary cause for intractable problems in the African-American community that range from substandard public schools to disproportionate rates of imprisonment, she says.

Electing a black president does not mean that America is ready to take on systemic racism" - Andra Gillespie | an assistant professor at Emory University's political science department

-----------------------------------------------------------------

By Stephanie E. Myers, Co-Chair, Obama Unity Network

Why would CNN feature a headline story July 22, 2008, on their website suggesting that an Obama presidency could hurt Black Americans on the eve of their series about Black America? Are they trying to scare Black Americans with such a negative article? Why in the world would CNN characterize an Obama victory as a bad thing for Black Americans--one of his core constituencies?

Let us examine the premise that Obama's victory will somehow close opportunities for other Blacks. Did Jackie Robinson hurt opportunities for Black Americans in Sports? Did Dr. Charles Drew hurt opportunities for Blacks in Medicine? Is a Tiger Woods harming opportunity for Blacks in golf? Has Kenneth Chennault's success at American Express closed doors on Wall Street for Black people? The answers are no, no and no--each one of these historic breakthroughs has led to more and expanded opportunities for Black Americans--not fewer as suggested by the CNN article.

Any claim that Barack Obama's success will harm Black Americans is an example of the dichotomy that is presented when Black Americans achieve and break barriers. The article suggests that Obama's victory could cause white Americans to "ignore entrenched racial divisions while claiming that America has reached the racial Promised Land." Such a claim is ridiculous in light of the fact that President Obama would be Commander in Chief and head of the federal government and in a powerful position to remedy on-going racial divisions from the top of the government--not from the bottom as has historically been the case. Reaching the Promised Land is a good thing for Black Americans--not a bad thing as the article featured on CNN suggests.

Clearly, some Black spokesmen will be paid and encouraged to oppose Barack Obama's success but, I am confident that his success will mark a new beginning for Black progress on a global and national level. I believe business opportunities for minorities will be improved; educational opportunities for underserved youth will be expanded; fair access to capital will be expanded; the criminal justice system will be brought under control; minorities will gain access to innovation and technology opportunities; our troops will come home and federal government programs will be administered with fairness and opportunity.

Will Barack Obama's presidency be an Open Door to the Promised Land? I hope so.   

Background - the following story was published by John Blake of CNN yesterday:

"We had a dream. Now it's a reality."

That's the slogan on a popular T-shirt linking Sen. Barack Obama's presidential run to the Rev. Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality. It's one of several T-shirts -- including "Barack is my homeboy"-- that reflect African-Americans' euphoria over Obama's White House bid.

But there are others who warn that an Obama presidency could hurt African-Americans. They say an Obama victory could cause white Americans to ignore entrenched racial divisions while claiming that America has reached the racial Promised Land.

Paul Street, author of the forthcoming book "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics," says Obama risks becoming an Oval Office version of talk-show host Oprah Winfrey. She and former Secretary of State Colin Powell are African-American figures whose popularity allows some white Americans to congratulate themselves for not being racist, he says

"They're cited as proof that racism is no longer a significant barrier to black advancement and interracial equality," Street said.

"This isn't new. Go to the 19th century, and Southern aristocrats would point to a certain African-American landowner who was doing well to prove that whites are not racist."

Nick Shapiro, an Obama spokesman, says Obama believes that America has made tremendous progress in the past 50 years. iReport.com: Biggest challenges for black America

"However, the suggestion that somehow Senator Obama's campaign represents an easy shortcut is not realistic," Shapiro said in a statement. "Senator Obama believes that we still have a lot of work to do, and that's not just true for the issues facing blacks or Latinos, but for women and other communities struggling to secure the basic necessities in life like jobs, housing, health care and quality education."

Are we a post-racial society?

Any suggestion that an Obama presidential victory could set back race relations may seem odd or even inappropriate. His presidential campaign has been framed by many observers as a glowing example of America's move to a "post-racial" society.

"Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics, but we're now a different, and better, country," Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, wrote last month about Obama's political rise.

The reaction in the African-American community to Obama's success has also been celebrated with joy.

When Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in June, many African-Americans cried because they said they never thought they would live to see such a day. Vendors soon started selling T-shirts of Obama's portrait pasted alongside King in Walgreens stores and at online stores.

Yet there are a few political commentators who warn African-Americans that an Obama victory could be twisted to suppress the push for racial equality. Most of these commentators are African-American, but they also include white, Latino and conservative pundits.

These commentators say that there is a subliminal appeal to Obama's presidential candidacy that has been ignored. Obama doesn't just represent change; he represents atonement for America's ugly racial past for others, they say.

Steve Sailer, a columnist for The American Conservative magazine, wrote last year that some whites who support Obama aren't driven primarily by a desire for change.

They want something else Obama offers them: "White Guilt Repellent," he wrote.

"So many whites want to be able to say, 'I'm not one of them, those bad whites. ... Hey, I voted for a black guy for president,' " Sailer wrote.

Sailer cited another reason why many whites want Obama as president:

"They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn't the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama - and their problems will be over."

Glen Ford, executive editor of the online journal blackagendareport.com, offered some white Americans a free solution to the race problem: "Millions of whites came to believe Obama could solve the 'race problem' by his mere presence, at no cost to their own notions of skin privilege," Ford wrote in an essay in January.

Other African-American commentators say the "post-racial" tag attached to Obama could be used to dismiss legitimate black grievances.

Andra Gillespie, an assistant professor at Emory University's political science department, says Obama's success doesn't mean America has become a post-racial society. She says it may signal the decline of individual racism but not another form of discrimination: systemic racism.

"It doesn't mean that there aren't prejudiced people anymore," she said.

Systemic racism is a form of racism that's entrenched in institutions. Some argue that it's the primary cause for intractable problems in the African-American community that range from substandard public schools to disproportionate rates of imprisonment, she says.

Electing a black president does not mean that America is ready to take on systemic racism, Gillespie says.

"A rising tide doesn't lift all boats," Gillespie said. "Just because [Obama] gets elected doesn't mean the lives of poor black people are automatically going to improve."

It could actually get worse for poor African-Americans, she says.

"People could say if Barack [Obama] can succeed and someone can't get off of the stoops in the hood, it's their fault, and it has nothing to do with systemic racism," Gillespie said.

D. Yobachi Boswell, a blogger for Black Perspective.net, wrote in January that the prospect of an Obama victory was making African-Americans politically passive.

He wrote that too many African-Americans were "doping ourselves up on the euphoric opium" of a black president while forgetting that "we need fundamental change, not just Negroes in high places."

Boswell says he's concerned that an Obama presidency would discourage African-Americans from keeping leaders accountable.

"We can't give [Obama] a pass because he's black," Boswell said. "We just can't have a black face in a high place. We have to have people fighting for policies that actually help us."

Obama has responded to such criticisms before. In his "A More Perfect Union" speech in March, he dismissed claims that his candidacy was fueled by the desire "to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap."

He acknowledged that racial disparities in education and wealth continued to exist and were linked to the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery.

"I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy, particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own," Obama said during that speech.

A black backlash against Obama?

Despite what Obama has said, his presidency could provoke a black backlash because the expectations are so high, others say.

African-Americans who would expect a President Obama to be a vigorous advocate for their cause may be disappointed by Obama's approach to race if he becomes president, some say.

Author Street says Obama may be a symbol of bold racial change but he is personally cautious about race. A President Obama won't want to appear to favor blacks, because he might lose political support if he appears as the "angry black man" in the White House.

Street says Obama understands that risk and has run as a "race-neutral" candidate who talks about racial oppression as something largely confined to the past.

"Barack plays a very active role in damping down race consciousness," Street said. "Race neutrality is one of the great characteristics of his campaign."

African-Americans may also be disappointed by an Obama presidency because they may have forgotten what Obama is: a politician, says David Sirota, author of "The Uprising," a book that examines how populist movements in America shape public policy changes.

"He's like any politician. He's cautious," Sirota said. "He's a potential vehicle for change, and I think he is a good vehicle, but he is just a vehicle."

His presidency may represent fundamental change, but that doesn't mean he will initiate such sweeping changes if he's elected.

"Politicians, even the best-intentioned ones, are weather vanes," Sirota said. "If the wind isn't blowing in the right direction, they will perpetuate the status quo."

It will take more than a presidential candidate to change the status quo; it'll take a movement, Sirota says.

"My concern is that people will think that by simply electing Obama, change will come, whether it's on race or economic justice issues," he said.

"If people believe that, then real change will not happen."

Hi! Remember me?  No? Well I use to be one of the people who watched your news channels which I have now stopped doing.  NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, are all things of the past for this viewer.  I have taken refuge in websites like these ones and many, many others.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/   

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/monday-puma-power/

http://www.hillaryis44.com/

http://obamawho.wordpress.com/

http://justsaynodeal.com/

Why? It is very simple.  I want to choose who I vote for without the lies, the love fest and the hideous way the media is spinning Obama and pushing him down my throat.  I am sick of hearing his name, sick of seeing him on television, sick of the cover ups and the lies the media is spinning about him and I am out seeking the truth about him. 

I am waiting for the media to tell the truth.  Why has Obama listed a fake birth certificate on his website?  Why has no one questioned the law which states this because his father was not a natural born citizen. He had to reside in the United States for ten years, 5 of these after the age of 16 with his natural born parent in order to be President?  Why are his associations with Ayers, Dohrn, Rezko, Soros, Wright, Farrakhan, and numerous other unsavory people being overlooked?  Why has no one interviewed Larry Sinclair or offered to give him the time of day to prove what he is saying wrong or true? Why is no one raising eyebrows about BO’s lies, the endorsement of almost all major terrorist groups, his constant flip flopping, and his almost daily gaffs? I personally am tired of the free passes, the excuses for his gaffs and flip flops his associations and I am sick of him.  Obama is a liar who is clearly out for himself and will throw anyone under the bus who gets in his way.  I agree with John McCain’s new ad about him and the media should be totally ashamed of themselves for their bias.

You know what? I am tired of being told who I will vote for.  I am tired of being told to “Just get over it.” I am tired of being told how wonderful Obama is when I know for a fact that he is nothing more than a Chicago styled Politician who rigged the election and will stop at nothing to get what he wants.  I am tired of the Media acting like he is God and I am so sick of seeing his face that I could throw up.  

So, this is how I handle it.  I have turned you off and refuse to watch any of your news networks except Hannity and Grettawire on Fox News.  I get all of my news online and from the bloggers.  I also have stopped buying any products that support your organizations.  I am just one voice but this one voice is sick of your voices screaming at me what I will do on Election Day. So I thought I would save you the problem of trying to recruit me for Obama and tell you what I plan to do.  On Election Day I will get up and cast my vote for a straight Republican ticket. 

I am beyond listening to the lies and beyond caring about the issues as the issues are nothing more than a platform to be used and twisted at will for Obama’s benefit.  I am beyond caring what the media says and have my eyes on one objective which is, to vote against Obama.  I have talked to all the black people I know and approached the topic openly with them. Most of them are fed up with him as well as they know he is not going to help them.  I will recruit any one I can not to listen to the main stream media, not to trust the polls and to get out to vote, not to stay home and not to vote for a third party but to vote with a vengeance for John McCain.  I have been asked if I am a secret Republican since the bots are spreading these rumors and I answer ,“Nope, I have been a Democrat all my life until now when I changed to an Independent because there is no Democratic Party anymore.”  I have helped change the registration affiliations of many Democrats to Independent or Republican, showing them where to go on the internet to do so. I am one voice which is fighting hard for what is truly right. 

Am I mad that Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination? No, I am angry that they are saying she will not be on the roll call as Donna Brazile said on CNN it would be bad for Obama’s ego.  I am angry that my state of Florida and my home state of Michigan was railroaded for Obama’s sake.  I am angry of the mistreatment of Hillary Clinton and other women in the media. I am not going to be a sheep who blindly follows the lies the media spreads about their choice for President.  Obama is YOUR CHOICE Media, not mine so stop trying to push him on me.  This does nothing but make me more mad and more resistant towards him.  I have a mind who seeks the truth and you are not giving it to me.  You are spinning this jerk like he is some sort of a demi-God and I RESENT IT.  At least some of the people in the media are starting to get it and are speaking out but they re few and far between. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-23-jul23,0,1832802.column

I know nothing about Obama that has not been manufactured by the media and he is not worth my time to vote for.  We do not even know the truth of where he was born.  He answers no questions, he is controlled like a puppet by people who handle him and every single time he gets his butt in a sling he points the finger towards someone else in the media to get himself out of the hot seat.  Is he worth voting for? No. Is BO electable, No. Is he Presidential material? No. So why is he even in this race?  Sorry Media your hype is not working with this voter, your love infatuation with him is disgusting, prejudice and totally without merit.  You go cast your vote for him media as this is one voter who will not be swayed and will never vote for him.  I look forward to Election Day just to go and vote against him.  That day for me will be sweetJ

Hillary Clinton is asking us what we want?  Please click into the link below and let her know what is going on with you.  I told her I will not back Obama no matter what.  I also told her to make sure she fights at Denver to get her name on the roll call as we deserve this much as her voters.  The bots are running all over the place saying Hillary and Bill endorse Obama and they will do anything to help him. Oh please, are they really that Kool-aide drunk?  If they believe this then I own the Brooklyn Bridge and it is up for sale. Take a moment and let Hillary know how you feel and ask her to fight for her name on the roll call.  We will be in Denver in masses to fight for her. But more importantly, we will be there to fight for this country and the election of a true American for President, not a media created empty suit.

http://www.hillpac.com/action/issues/?sc=2498&utm_source=2498&utm_medium=e

The New York Times piece about sexism and the Clinton campaign represents several sides of the argument. But like most such efforts, it only talks to media vice presidents, journalism deans, executive directors of organizations and a smattering of news celebrities.

Missing is a conversation with the ordinary women who grew appalled by the open season for misogyny that characterized the recent campaign. One didn't have to be a Clinton fanatic or even female to identify the liberties taken --- from dismissive and patronizing comments by Obama himself to crude slurs hurled at women, particularly older ones, wearing Hillary stickers. Many of the Clinton campaigners I interviewed for a recent column didn't want me to include their names or home towns for fear of harassing phone calls from the unbuttoned male ids of the Obama camp. (They didn't make it into the column because I almost never use anonymous quotes.)

The crazy part is that these women were loyal Democrats, overwhelmingly ready to move over to Obama should Clinton lose, and no Democratic leader stood up to criticize the nastiness. It was just assumed that the ladies would fall in line and lick the envelopes for whoever became the candidate.

I'll have a lot more to say on this.