Chuck Todd: Don't believe the PUMA hype
By SilentPatriot Monday Aug 25, 2008 8:05pm
Chuck Todd makes an observation Monday night that many of his colleagues fail (or refuse to) acknowledge: That the influence of the PUMA crowd is greatly exaggerated, and the Republicans have their own "PUMA problem" with Ron Paul and his supporters.
Download | play 
Download | play
"I think what's happening is we're in our Denver bubble. There's 1/3 of the Democratic establishment here who would be big time players had Clinton won, and they can stoke this a little. The McCain campaign is stoking this, releasing this ad. And there is a small core group, but I think they have a louder voice than they do a volume of numbers. So, look, I think we're gonna look back in a few days and say 'these PUMAs are really no different than these Ron Paul folks that we're gonna run into in St. Paul.'"
(Nicole) While it's nice to see Todd employ a little balance given that his network indulged freely in their Hillary Derangement Obsession and could not go five minutes nor a single guest without asking about Hillary Clinton (don't get me started on Chris Matthews--his record was 45 seconds without a Hillary question), he truly wasn't being honest about the PUMA phenomenon. These PUMA detractors aren't Democrats, no matter how badly the media wants to drag this out and create these fantasy dramas. The PUMA operation is very clearly a GOP game as much as Operation Chaos:
PUMA (originally "Party Unity My A**" and now officially a more sedate "People United Means Action") was one of the original angry Hillary groups. Started by Darragh Murphy and depending on whose story you read Will Bowers, PUMA fed on the anger over the actions of the Democratic National Committee over the Florida and Michigan delegations. The PUMA PAC website features a graphic that now says "Obama National Committee" rather than Democratic National Committee.
As Amanda at Pandagon discovered, Murphy donated money to McCain in 2000. She has never donated money to Clinton. Disenfranchised Clinton supporter? I don't think so. And Rumproast has documented how the PUMAs have sought to make themselves sound much larger and more organized than they are. 60 of them about to take charge of the convention? Not bloody likely.
Eric Boehlert at Media Matters adds:
Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab.
Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.
This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.
So to the C&Lers still wanting to get your Hillary-hate on...think about it. This is not coming from Hillary Clinton. Hell, the RNC held a "Happy Hour with Hillary" party without her last night. This is all about GOP operatives fomenting disunity in the party (and their buddies in the media only too happy to go along to get a more interesting coverage) and using you to do it. PUMA = GOP = Operation Chaos. PUMA ≠ Hillary Clinton. Don't give the GOP the satisfaction of watching their plans succeed.
UPDATE: Anecdotal evidence supporting what I've said from Todd at MyDD:
Hillary delegates are not happy. I ran into a woman as I was entering the hard perimeter on my way into the Pepsi Center collecting signatures to a new petition demanding a public roll call. As she told me:
We circulated the 300 petition to get Hillary a roll call vote and they gave it to us but now they're trying to nullify it...They want everyone to do a ballot at breakfast, turn it in behind closed doors. We believe all the people who voted for Hillary should be represented.
This is the same sentiment I heard from Hillary delegates at the California delegation breakfast this morning, particularly Gloria Allred, who was protesting having been "gagged" from organizing a gathering of Hillary delegates and from speaking at the California delegation. What she said she wants is for every Hillary delegate to be able to vote for her on the first ballot. The reason she intends to vote for Hillary: she represents thousands of Hillary voters and she owes it to them. But also, she feels it is her obligation per DNC rules. Whatever the technicalities of it, every Hillary delegate I spoke to expressed the desire to vote for her, to express their support for her, but not to the exclusion of supporting Barack Obama ultimately. This is what most "Democrats in disarray" storylines don't seem to get. These delegates are excited to support Barack Obama, they're all for him, but they want the opportunity to vote for her publicly and they see some sexism in the prohibition from being able to do so (why no roll call vote for Hillary when it's been done before.)
Login or Register to post comments.
Yawn....
Hey, Chuck...Ron Paul got how many votes? That comparison oughta make the pumas really happy.
The GOP is laughing its ass off.
well i'm tired of hearing about the pumas
i thought it was being hyped. it's nice to see someone agree.
I think this is one of the key factors -- the politbureau types who were so hungry for what they had assumed would be guaranteed Clinton / DLC consultancy & party position dollars, once Hillary wrapped up her 'inevitable' candidacy, they could taste them are trying to stir this up for all it's worth, in order to see what they can extort out of the a'skeered party. For example, Carville.
In the Nixon era everyone (especially the media) would have classified the current GOP tactics as "dirty tricks." In today's bassackwards world, the media classifies GOP conduct of this type as "brilliant politics." Go figure.
Funny the right wing corporate OWNED media has played the PUMA crap for all it is worth since June, BUT not a GOD DAMNED peep about the real revolt this year Ron Paul's backers and the GOPers denial of a candidate who has delegates.
I wonder if the right wing corporate owned MSM will find the time next week to even mention it at all?
Why is the corporate owned media so afraid of telling the truth?
yea, but... didn't i just hear him going on about it this evening?
listening to randi rhodes today - she said it was overblown also... "it ain't happening"...
the media is fabricating so much about it, to keep up the tension...
it's still nerve wracking... mostly i think these kind are posers:
Angry Clinton supporters toast McCain, roast Obama
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/clinton.backers/?iref=hpmostpop
pretty stoopid, anyway.
Here I have to disagree with you, those 60 people can have a powerful effect on the message coming out of the convention based upon how much noise they rattle up in the media. As evidenced by your clip the media is talking about those 60 people, so even if the convention is unified behind O'bama there will still be the impression out there that it is not. With the constant time that dude with the freaky hair, their leader will something, gets on air, and with all the media reports they will get a loud message across for 60 people. Just today I picked up 4 newspapers (3 nationals and a local) and each had a story on PUMA.
The Republiscum will gnash their gums and howl piteously about partisan politics should Obama or a surrogate so much as open his or her mouth during their convention.
The Washington stenographic pool, formerly known as the Fourth Estate, continue to foment discord primarily because it makes for a good story even if it is fiction. They're overjoyed that McBush is feeding them copy so they can sip latte and try to book face time on one of the networks.
well as i suspected plenty of rope to hang ourselves.
this PUMA chick with the sound bite about barack being schooled at a madrasa(sp) is getting under my skin.
my understanding obama's birth father was muslim
so what. maybe i'm being over reactive but these people don't serve any purpose and are totally rude. voting for mccain because it didn't go there way....i hope hillary will represent the party and can look beyond her ego.
personally i respect her and i would have supported her. these people trying to sabotage obama's campaign
clinton's for mccain.....need to reevalute there behavior.
Obviously, I've not been paying attention lately.
What's a "PUMA"?
I do not believe that their 'buddies in the media' do it to get more interesting coverage. I believe that they do it because the media people are hardcore Republican operatives with media jobs. Their loyalty is first and foremost to the Republican Party and that loyalty is why they were hired by the Republican media owners for whom they work. It is that simple.
I think the term PUMA had a deliberate "cougar" inspiration. Cougar, a term for a sexually liberated woman pursuing a younger class of male.
SEE VIDEO: Digg Pelosi Question Now: Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Aren't you violating your oath when you refuse to impeach a war criminal?
Digg is interviewing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will be in the spotlight with your questions presented by Digg CEO Jay Adelson on Wednesday 8/27 at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Digg John Perry's question please.
did anybody else catch ann curry interviewing nancy pelosi last night?
what an annoying and rude job that was... every single question ann asked was about the "hillary problem"...
i thought nancy did a good job of stearing back to the relevant topics...
Clif,
Re:
Huh? The corporate media is PROPAGANDA pure-and-simple for their owner's selfish, sleazy and greedy interests. The truth has absolutely nothing to do with what appears in the corporate media. And the media lords have absolutely no fear nor any conscience about the matter.
Take a quick survey of the totally one-sided coverage of the Georgia-Russia conflict and you'll see what I mean, i.e. that the truth is completely inconvenient to the profits of the plutocrats. NBC - GE (war contractor), Fox News = Rupert Murdock (sensationalist war monger), ABC = Disney (right wing to the bone).... You get the point, I'm sure.
The press is the story. The Democrats are running a totally lame convention. I still don't know what their message is and we won't get it from the Clintons, who will speak about whatever they want. Hillary won't rip McCain, Bill won't rip McCain and Gov. Warner won't rip McCain. They are wasting their spot in the limelight. What a group of incompetent boobs.
They should have thrown the kitchen sink at McCain. The Republicans are enjoying watching chickens running around with their heads cut off, worrying about Hillary and Bill.
Can anyone tell me what the message is? Can anyone tell me where the message is that McCain is a bad choice.
I'm voting Democrat, but what a bunch of losers.
Rico @ 5:
I figure the "media" as we know them are full-blown agents provocateur for the Goopers. They walk, talk and quack like it, what are we supposed to think?
cufford:
Party
Unity
My
Ass
listen to this PUMA chick....somebody mentioned she probably falls into that hillary uneducated white class
i don't know but totally rude and an ass
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/chris-matthews-experience_n_121...
Cufford @ 12:
It's explained in the article above. Briefly, it orginated as "Party Unity, My _$$"
I was stuck all afternoon listening to MSNBC's coverage of the sound and lighting guys getting ready for tonight's convention. They set up a new straw man about every 20 minutes, then ripped the crap out it, went to commercials for doggy pain killers, then came back and started all over. One minute it was about party unity, the next time it is about lack of message, the next it was about how stupid it is to talk about McCain's inability to remember where his house is, followed by how mad Bill Clinton is, and on and on.
lmab @ 18:
Some of them have critized McCain. WTF do you want. Are you going to set an example for the younger generations who have the most to lose, or are you just going to be another selfish whiner. Some of you make me sick.
i don't know why people watch this shit. the only part of this i'm watching are the speeches by hillary, bill, joe, and barack. once their speeches end i will immediately change the channel, because i refuse to watch these media assholes commentary. everybody should do the same.
The fact that PUMA's new name is a direct contradiction of their old one tells you all you need to know about them.
Say anything!
I agree with Todd. If the PUMA's were so loyal to Hillary how come she can't seem to retire much of her debt. There is small mouthy group of sore loosers that care nothing about what Hillary stood for with regard to policies. If they did, they would be solidly behind Obama. Apparently, these big mouth sore loosers only have big mouths, but are unwilling to open their wallets for even a few dollars to someone they claim to care so much about. This is more media story than anything else.
Cufford @ 12:
It's a Republic party member (Thug) pretending to be a Hillary supporter so's they can fuck up the Dems even more.
lmab @ 18:
If they say anything bad about McCain, the MSM will freak out about picking on a POW. Did you know McCain spent over 5 years without so much as a table?
Cufford @ 12:
Originally, 'Party Unity My A**' and now a more sedate 'People United Means Action,' or some other such nonsense.
If Hillary can deliver her speech without looking out of the side of her eyes, her trademark head bobble, or the on/off smile at the end of her speech, I *might* believe she's sincere.
And let's be honest - you can say, 'It's not Hillary' all you want, and even with the GOP-codependents in the media, she's the one who kept feeding her supporters the drivel about their 18 million votes entitling them (and her) to something. She's the one who pushed fuzzy math to argue she had a lock on the nomination.
Nobody's buying her sudden conversion because she burned her credibility in the primaries.
lmab @ 18:
easy does it we don't need premature ejxcxlation it's been one day wow.....i'm anxious but please....
xargaw @ 27:
I think it is part a media story, but also a way for the media to explain the fact that Barack Obama does not have the support he should have, without having to mention the fact that there are progressives who are really pissed off at Hillary AND Barack.
miss_kitty @ 28:
ding! ding! ding!
i'm tending to agree more and more... there's no way a REAL dem or REAL prog could even THINK about voting for mcGEEZER.
Yellow Cake is for Twinkies @ 29:
And when he was a kid, he walked to school, 25 miles on a dirt road, in the dark, in hip-deep snow, uphill both ways, dont'cha know.
But, seriously, McCain's being a POW doesn't explain why he can't remember how many houses he owns, even if they are for investment purposes ... unless he wants to admit to a head injury with long-term effects. In which case, he's hardly qualified for dog catcher, let alone president.
katy @ 33:
i'm a real dem.....i'm voting Obama/Biden'08
i don't expect to lose but if this party(clintons) fxxk it
up i may join the growing independents....it's getting to
frustrating when i feel don't see the obvious.
PUMA
People
Undermining
My
America
Shadowgm Hussein @ 34:
you know the deal.....he knew the answer he didn't want to respond to that question(s). it's none of our business.....i think even mccain thinks some of the moves his consultants are making him perform are against his own values. he gets stuff with answers
and one liners everyday. he knew how that would play.
money is always played into the definition of elitism by some. his campaign will fool the foolish.
i think the puma is a big hype too. i think they are rush limbaugh's people. noone who is a democrat could vote for insane.
constituent @ 31:
I agree. It's too early to panic. That's reserved for this weekend when the talking-heads babble about all the missed opportunities the Democrats had to bring down the Republican Party. The fact that the McCain campaign feels a need to release a new negative ad every day of this convention (a time when the other party usually lets the other party have the stage) gives me hope that they must know they're in trouble somewhere.
I hope the Democrats counter-attack vigorously next week...release a string of commercials....perhaps a sort of mini-series....featuring U.S. Veterans for Obama.
i want to see an ad/commercial with mccain/bush
hugging with bush administration approval number
28% and mccain's 95% voting agreement with bush policy.
PUMA is just another "inside the Democratic Party" Republican swift boat operation, similar to the same subterfuge meant to wreck the Democratic Party from the inside as displayed by the DLC DINO Blue Dog Democrats...who just held their own "convention" in Denver with AT&T footing the bill, a very grateful AT&T because of the traitorous and un-American action by the Blue Dogs in helping get the recent FISA bill enacted that gave retroactive immunity to all the criminally complicit telecom companies.
I don't think any Democrats honestly believe Hillary is stoking this anymore. Therefore, none of us here are really hating on her.
I'm hating on her followers. Yeah, some of them are GOP operatives. But the rest are, or were, Democrats now vowing to vote for a Republican douchebag just to spite Obama for some perceived injustice.
In my view, it's just another opportunity to purge more scum from the party. Just like the civil rights movement purified the racist southerners from it. It's all good news in my opinion.
And as for the media-well, they're the media. As everyone else in this thread has pointed out, they've been GOP operatives for a long time.
If Americans were smart they'd be watching the Convention on Cspan instead of cable major network news. That way they avoid all the idiotic talking heads like Todd, not to mention commercials. That's what I've been doing, and it's been great.
Need I point out the obvious flaw in the argument?
Apparently.
Hillary Clinton's policy positions are basically exactly the same as Barack Obama's. They are certainly closer by far to Barack Obama's than they are to John McCain.
PUMAs are not in disagreement with Barack on any policy issues. PUMAs are upset because their candidate lost, and because they really really wanted her to win so it's totally not fair.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is the polar opposite of John McCain's. Ron Paul's adherence to the Constitution is the polar opposite of McCain's. And Ron Paul's monetary policy is completely different from John McCain's.
Ron Paul's supporters have fundamental differences of opinion with John McCain on public policy questions, and base their governing philosophy on strict adherence to the Constitution..
PUMAs like Hillary more better than the black guy who's probably a Muslim.
Chuck Todd, you are a transparent douche.
Spicegal @ 43:
C span, not one commercial in two days.
Look, the PUMA thing is nonsensical. Like, Lyndon LaRouche nonsensical.
Hillary is offering her unqualified support to Barack Obama. If you ask Hillary who she would recommend you vote for, she would say Barack Obama.
This leaves only two possibilities: either Hillary is lying and offering insincere support just to keep the Democratic party together, in which case she is sacrificing her integrity in the name of perpetuating the very corruption you say you're trying to fight, or Hillary is sincere and believes that Barack Obama will make a better president than John McCain, in which case she's as much of a naive dupe as the rest of the Obama supporters.
So, which is it, PUMAs? Should we ignore Hillary's endorsement because she's a liar? Or because she's a fool?
Bonus question: if you're so upset with Barack Obama for disrespecting Hillary in the middle of a campaign where they were running against each other and where each was a fair target, why do you take no offense at the McCain campaign using Hillary AGAINST her will when she's NOT a candidate?
She called McCain right out on that, the same as she called Obama out. Why no anger at McCain? Why no offense on Hillary's behalf for John McCain's disrespect?
Obama arguably disrespected Hillary in the midst of a fight WITH Hillary. McCain has gratuitously used your candidate as a puppet in a campaign she's not even in!
At least Ron Paul has a message, these PUMA people just scream like insane ex-wifes.
www.nopuma.com -- help figure out what these people have to offer and ask your own question
These Hillary people need to STFU.
She was rejected fair and square.
We need to work on making sure JJ McSame does NOT get in the White House, now.
The funny thing is BOTH campaigns were subjected to obscene amounts of sexism and racism. No need for the Hill supporters to get their panties in bunch.
she did it... she did good...
Thank You, Hillary!
P ersonally
U nimpressed by
M atronly
A narchist
S hrews
No more Bushes or Clintons in the Executive branch. They've had their turn. And let's have a constitutional amendment banning First Husbands or First Ladies or Presidential Loinspawn from becoming President. It's proven to be a really shit idea.
Hey I used to work for Puma shoes, great shoes, great name. I don't like these fools who have absconded the name, so let's give them a new more fitting name: McIdiots!
Jeon Ji-Yung @ 52:
Amen.
cnn/suzanne malveaux just interviewed a drama queen who refuses to vote for obama. these people are risking their future by standing down. she says she wont vote for mccain but she finds obama inexperienced. these people are just proud and refuse to let go. their objections are not based on the facts. cnn gave this woman more than 5 minutes to virtually campaign for mccain. she says she is a democrat but she's just a clinton fan.
I'm not sure if that was by SP or Nicole. In any case, it reflects an HRC meme that has been nearly as infuriating the constant and gratuitous accusations of sexism made by HRC commenters on this and other lefty sites: dislike of Hillary's candidacy could only be based on some irrational, if not misogynistic, hatred. Where did this ridiculously arrogant notion come from?
Yes, I get it that the right-wing attack machine was way unfair to the Clintons (mostly to Bill) in the ninety's, hell, I was one of the many defending him. But throughout the primary, the Internet attacks on HRC have come overwhelmingly from the left, and yet these attacks were (are?) still labeled Hillary Derangement Syndrome or some such nonsense. Why?
Without repeating ad nauseum the long list of criticisms made against HRC during the primaries, three initial categories stand out: corporate connections, the Iraq/Iran War(s), and a weak, nepotistic resume. These attacks are hardly right wing (see e.g. George W. Bush), nor are they "irrational." Yet HRC supporters responded almost solely by attacking the vast majority of the Left as misogynists or right wing tools. That hatred (by the HRC universe) was rational criticism, but the hatred they were responding to (of HRC and her candidacy) was irrational "derangement."
As the campaign went on and it was confirmed with a lengthy string of incidents that the Clinton was also an almost shameless race-baiter and a completely shameless liar, those who disliked her tactics were also labeled as irrational or sexist - except by then even more so.
I'm sorry, but fighting against a Hillary Clinton presidency was not "irrational" or "deranged." It was easily the greatest progressive victory of the last four decades.
aaahhhhh... much needed comedy relief... a new DAILY SHOW!
someone linked to a PUMA clip posted at huffpo earlier... the daily show found the same group of "hillary supporters", in particular, i recognized the long haired blonde... john oliver and friends had their way with them... priceless!
masha @ 55:
Suzanne Malignant is just another manipulative Repub operative like Norah O' Donnell. Too bad she found a dupe that was willing to be used by the corporatist media. Take Suzanne seriously at your own risk.
Great speech by Hillary. Personally, I can't see the harm in letting the Hillary supporters vote for Hillary at the convention. The whole country knows it was a close race, but there will be no surprises at the convention, count on it. The final tally will be close but Obama will have more votes. So what is the harm? There must be something I am missing in this.
Olbermann is reporting that Hillary got a standing ovation before and after her speech - by Obama supporters. The disunity scam is showing some major cracks.
masha @ 55:
I saw that too, and thought that lady could not have heard Hillary Clinton's speech. Sheeesh.
When the poop hits the propeller and obama is brought down, and Hillary is your only choice, what will you people do? After listening to you all, I'm sure that you will say "Hillary is our only choice, and we stand behind her". As if. 'What will bring obama down', you ask? Hubris. As in, the Berg lawsuit. obama is a fraud, and all you folks have been sucked up. I thought Democrats are supposed to be smarter than that. But of course there are people of all parties who have their heads up their asses.
so we can classify hardheaded hillary supporters as
(a) drama queens, or
(b) republicans disguised as democrats to create chaos
jimbo @ 62:
you dont make sense. and pray tell, why is obama a fraud?
katy @ 16:
saw that. yah, ann curry was insistent there was a problem. and curry was preventing pelosi from watching the carter presentation. talk about lack of manners.
jimbo @ 62:
Tell me, how do you envision Obama being "brought down?"
Hillary's speech was awesome. People praise Obama's speaking ability – and justly so – but she's no slouch when it comes to oratory.
Also should mentoin that many of these so-called former Hillary Clinton supproters who have decided to vote for McCain are obvious posers sent in by the Republicans. As in this video from MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH9IVm64NYs
They are trolls plain and simple, no different than the vile "Brooks Brothers Rioters" in Florida, during the 2000 recounts.
Out them, bitch-slap them, kick them to the goddamn curb.
matthews is still at it. asking mcauliffe about adlai stevenson remark of ed rendell. guess he has nothing to talk about. he should just move it over to the panel. pat buchanan seem to exist for maddow to poop on.
With his libertarian views, Ron Paul with take votes from the left also, not just the right.
I can't keep up, but has anyone pointed out to any of the PUMAs that:
1. McCain's positions are basically the opposite of Hillary's.
2. If they are willing to vote for McCain, they must not have believed in Hillary's message.
3. They therefore were supporting her just because she is a woman.
4. Isn't that kind of the opposite of what Hillary was fighting for?
She may have been willing to use her gender to help win the primaries, but does anyone think she wanted to be known as "That woman who was president"? What was the woman's liberation movement about but being recognized as equals, for the "content of their character" rather than for their gender?
Vote for McCain, write in Hillary, vote for Nader. They should do whatever they want, but they should stop lying to themselves that they believe in the Democratic platform, support the positions Hillary supports, and are making some sort of brave stand. They aren't brave. They are idiots.
Aye yai yai @ 44:
And it's lines like that that out the PUMA's for what they are, spoilers no longer saying, "I like Hillary or her policies." That Muslim crap (as if it should be a slur) is a dead giveaway of a lesser Operation Chaos plant taking marching orders from the great pimple ass deferment one.
To the ones who are staying progressive but still saying that tired "Obama is a fraud" crap. Not once I've heard any of you saying these things give real tangible backup to these statements. Not once... it's just feelings and resentment because yes, some folks jumped and may have yelled racism. I have no more tolerance for those people than I do people who automatically yelled "sexist" when fair criticism of Clinton.
Want to hear a real speaker and you tell me if you believe in the tenents of being a Dem vs. a poser playing into false devision, I ask all these PUMA's : what did you think of Dennis Kucinich's speech. Do you believe in what he says? If so, how could you vote for someone that's diametrically opposed to the party that would enpower such people (well, so long as we vote out all the DLC types.)
And in her memory, would you vote against what the late great Stephanie Tubbs Jones wanted?
Chuck Todd is an idiot for again following his employers' line instead of looking at the facts.
1) As mentioned above, Hillary and Barack have very similar positions on almost all the issues. Ron Paul and McCain are polar opposites.
2) The media has given plenty of coverage to the PUMAs "struggle" while completely ignoring the convention inconvienences in Nevada, among other states, that Ron Paul's supporters caused for McCain's coronation.
3) Hillary just gave a rousing, excellent speech supporting Obama. McCain trying to lure Paul supporters - no go.
Do some actual research, Todd.
These people are either GOP trolls or they are petulant children having a tantrum.
If you want the things Hillary wants you vote for Obama because McCain will do the opposite.
I don't think you can really compare the 50 or whatever angry PUMA members to the actual and very real Ron Paul movement. PUMA is a joke, its been proven several ways (financially, by their small number meetups, the fact they are backed by RNC operatives). Ron Paul is about to hold a competing convention with at least 15,000+ attendees. And those would just be a sliver of his total support.
The PUMA group had no real, lasting or serious objective of any kind. "Don't vote for Obama because he's racist/sexist/corrupt/whatever but we can't prove it or back it up in any way" was apparently the entirety of their so-called platform. It's not a movement, its not even a protest vote. You need more than 50 angry grandmas to have a protest vote.
The Ron Paul movement is very real, he has at least hundreds of thousands of supporters (as evidenced by the campaign contributions he recieved and the fact he can fill his own convention hall). They have real, sustainable goals: restore the republican party to its roots of constitutionalism and justice. Help do away with the Neocon movement, which sane republicans and every democrat will tell you has been a destructive force and a blight on our history. This is about Republicans trying to restore their party to something logical and based on principles, not ideology.
It's probably good that the Progressive movement is completely separate and not in cahoots with the Ron Paul movement. There are crossover goals like ending the war and promoting peace, but realistically its also a matter which is internal to the Republican party. Only Republicans can fix their party, any tampering would be the liberal equivalent of operation chaos, and that would only hurt the Ron Paul movement.
I am hoping that they succeed and I'll be trying to find some kind of broadcast (PBS or CSPAN?) to tune in and watch their convention.
Couldn'tagree more. In the end, any so-called Hillary supporter who buys into the PUMA hype, and votes for McCain claiming that it was absolutely necesary for them to vote for someone who will set policy against their interests, is nothing short of either someone who is a profound liar, or someone who still has issues over skin color. It's am absolute bogus platform that has been more than exposed as a GOP hack attempt. I am not going to pretend that I wanted to see Hillary Clinton in there as I still have a hard time reconciling her support for the Iraq war. However, despite how much a bunch of idiot right-wing shill bloggers, or otherwise clueless self-appointed spokespersons for me, would like to say otherwise, had Hillary gotten the nomination, she had my vote. There's a difference between "change" and "revolution." No candidate was offering the latter. Every single one will likely pass law I don't agree with. But, if we organize and remain organized, they will listen to us. We haven't had that opportunity in 8 years and certainly won't have it under McCain.
If you're buying into the PUMA swindle, check your head.
PUMA! Big deal ... they are a small part of the Hillary crowd. The majority will fall in line.
The real story .... NEVER covered was when McCain became presumptive in March, he still struggled to get more than 70% of the vote. Paul and Huckabee consistently pulled 25-30% or more...
Where was the news coverage of the Republican split. No... a white woman/black man slug-fest was MUCH sexier!
Oh yeah, and where was the press HOUNDING the old man's VP pick since March? Yet he gets to wait until AFTER the DNC?
PUMA? Who cares... Unless PUMA now means:
Pitiful
Useless
Media
Asses
BTW Hillary did a fabulous job! Freakin' great!
(Still not as good as Dennis in his 6 minutes!)
Dennis is my hero. Seriously.
Chuck Todd makes an observation Monday night that many of his colleagues fail (or refuse to) acknowledge: That the influence of the PUMA crowd is greatly exaggerated, and the Republicans have their own “PUMA problem” with Ron Paul and his supporters.
Not one peep from this traitorous media about the right wing problem with Ron Paul and his supporters.
The mainstream media is the enemy of the Democratic Party. Ive been saying this for years!!!
The MSM made Barack Obama. Corporate America is afraid of a Hillary Clinton presidency. It is not at all afraid of Obama.
Of course PUMA is nothing to worry about. That's why Obama's poll numbers keep going down. The media hypes his European Victory tour and his numbers go down. The media hypes his VP selection process and his numbers go down. The media assures us that Hillary voters will come over to Obama and his numbers go down. The only numbers that have been going up for Obama are the numbers of Hillary voters who say that they won't vote for him. Good t