PUMA: Party Unity My Ass. A new coalition formed to say no deal to voting for Obama.

Okay, there are two ways to handle things like this. We can ignore this huge list of bloggers, pretend they are not really Democrats...or we can be aware of what they are doing.

This is whole hell of a lot of blogs that are anti-Obama and anti-DNC. Granted some may only involve a few. Hard to tell with all the new forms of astroturfing.

But they are there, and we have only mentioned a few here like No Quarter, Talk Left, or Taylor Marsh. I only see No Quarter listed at these sites.

Here is the PUMA site, aka "Just say no deal"

Just say no deal

Here is their logo.



They plan a million women march in Denver

This site has a complete listing of the pro-Hillary, anti-Obama blogs.

Guess what? They are even trying to defeat John Kerry.



They say our party has abandoned Women and the Working Class in favor of Latte Drinking Liberals.

That post calls Obama and his supporters arrogant. I see many talking points that are used here at DU lately.

Do we ignore them, pretend they are harmless and just need to get it out of their system? Do we assume they are simply cross over Republicans? (I frankly don't think so.)

sore losers. :rofl:

:hi:

MadFloridian, I am also a Floridian and I am also mad, but I have reasons like disenfranchisement to make me mad. You shouldn't be mad; you should be worried. Yes, we are real. Yes, we are Democrats who put country before party. Yes, there are a lot of us. No, there's nothing you can do about it. You can ignore us or keep whining, but neither will make a difference. You've had your season of spewing venom everywhere and bullying at caucuses. Now it's our turn to take our party back from those who will not uphold democratic principles. It's our turn to stand up to a process of selection rather than election. You are powerless to do anything about it.

would have encouraged them to stir up the choas.

But, if they're for real then they are sore losers or they could be stealth operatives. :wtf: knows these days.

Though it might be more of a "Million Pan Frolic"

:eyes:

Fuck 'em.

n/t

Sure, her state of the union reply wasn't great, but she could've read the dictionary for all I care.

I'm there.

Penises In Government (dot blogspot dot com)

And we will ONLY vote for MEN for office, no matter how stupid the candidate is or Which incumbent woman we are evicting from office.

We will hold seminars about how to use our most important decision making part of our bodies to literally vote with our genitals!

Makes as much sense.

Vaginas
In
America
Believe
Lead
Elect

?

THIS “PUMA”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8gQ-YdgeMU

“How many lumps?”

‘Oh, better make it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF2erYQWIOs&feature=related">three or four...” LOL!

rational or well thought out, IMHO.

probably just making things worse with this.

Leave them behind. Some of them will catch up, some of them won't. Either way, we're going to win.

I won't post it again.

Winning is one of those contagious things that people just can't resist. Like the party pooper watching everybody enjoying themselves and eventually deciding that maybe coming off the wall isn't so bad.


They'll be back.

This is about oil and war, not Bill and Hill.

You're making too much of this, CIA or not.

Look we know more now, so let's not make the same mistake twice.

.

The dynamic you're looking at is a two-way street. If you stoke this conflict you are doing more damage than good.

IF this is CIA, or the Pentagon, or whoever, trying to do this, what you're doing plays right into their hands. You're creating discord.

Just because there MAY be evil forces at play here doesn't mean that you treat the situation any differently than if it was only true Clinton supporters. At the very least, the vast majority of these people really believed in Clinton and wanted her to win. They're feeling left out and saying some stupid stuff.

Let them come around. Keep winning, and they will.


Don't worry so damned much.

Do you think Dem politicians are going to shit on Obama just because they don't like him? There's payola galore passing hands just like it did in 2000 and 2004. It isn't amateurs.

....It doesn't matter.

It's the amateurs we care about. For those "amateur" Democrats, we need to give them the choice of being part of this historic campaign or being left behind, not pounded as traitors.

If those grassroots Clinton supporters don't want to be involved, they don't have to. We're just going to win this, with or without them. But- if we avoid STOKING this, like posts these do- most of them will eventually see the light.

It's the pros who are causing the trouble, and the amateurs are getting fooled by it. Shining a light on the troublemakers can only help.

These sites are funded and managed by professionals paid by the Republican National Committee. It's psy-ops. Divide and conquer. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (the FUD factor). Scare people into thinking that there's a Movement (a Movement, by God!!!) of Wimmin in this Hallowed Country who Will Not Support Obama! The best antidote to lies like this is derisive laughter.

I don't know a single woman who doesn't support Obama. Not one single woman.

Bullshit.

I have never had you on my list I don't see...but you just never know.

We are in a serious battle with unknown opponents.

You're getting a little crazy.


I disagree with your political intuition, which is well-informed but in the same way a little skewed.

The emotional way in which you're reacting to my posts betrays that you're not being very objective.


Just chill out, please.

It is usually when I get uncomfortably close to truth.

You are baiting me when I posted something that needed to be seen.

Shame on you. You are rude and condescending.

That is an old tactic..that chill crap. You chill yourself.

Mad, I have great admiration for your dedication but, damn, you get really, really caught up.

To the point where every time someone simply disagrees with you, you interpret it as a personal attack against you.

Then you use guilt trips and push the issue toward yourself and stop talking about what we were previously talking about.


We're trying to have a conversation, here, and we're on the same side. We have a legitimate disagreement. But it would be much easier to talk with you if you left yourself out of it.

I invite you to review the conversation we just had and look at how it evolved. It's gotten to a pretty nonconstructive, pointless place now.


Don't put me on ignore. I'm certainly not going to ignore you. We'll try again another time.

I have usually ignored it. I never much reacted to you, but I am now.

That is enough. It has happened to often. My post was well thought out, and it was a good one.

Shame on you for trying to put a guilt trip on me.

But I can't converse with you if you won't listen at least a little bit to what I'm saying.

You have done it before way too often.

Sorry, for now we are done.

It is meant to harm.

You just ignore all of it. Go ahead.

disagreement as condescension.

Then, when you inject yourself into the conversation in your reaction, the condescension that is inherent in any conceivable response to what you have then done confirms this idea in your mind that you were being looked down upon all along.

One will always feel looked down upon when they make themselves the issue of conversation.


You wanted to talk about you, somewhere along the line. Now we're talking about you, and you don't like it. That's understandable, but you steered the conversation in that direction.


What I'm telling you is: Don't talk about you. Talk about what we were talking about.

I once told her to stop taking everything personally.

You simply have to insult them. Call them emotional, overwrought, tell them they are cultlike or worshippers.

It does not work with me.

I have been hearing that stuff since 2003, and it bothers me no more.

You two have made it personal....and I will continue to post what is needed. About Florida, about PUMA, and Bull Goose and Wyldwolf continue what they started back in 2003.

I am updating....

I don't do personality trait attacks on anyone. Those two have done that to me since 2003...and it is making me angry.

Either payola or blackmail, unless I'm leaving something out? :shrug:

I am the one pointing it out.

Whoever they are, we should not ignore them. We ignored too much in 2004...

We need to be aware.

I am sorry, but alert on me if you think you should.

It sounds like you're very caught up in a lot of this stuff that's going on down in Florida, which is, admittedly, a very important state.

But this campaign is much broader than Florida, and I think you're getting really emotionally invested in causes that aren't necessarily lost, but do need to be simply left alone.

If you don't like the post, put it on ignore thread.

This is far less divisive that some of the stuff going on here.

It is a statement of fact.

There's a whole lot of money sloshing around and it isn't all coming from the Clintons.

There are much bigger forces at work here than the Clintons who are basically willing stooges who sold out decades ago.

True or not...so?

If they're trying to sew discord, just ignore them.


The real Dems will see us winning and get on board. Don't worry so much about it.

This is exactly the same shit from exactly the same crowd. And incidentally, he didn't ignore the swifties, but he probably could have denounced them more vigorously.

If your ultimate goal is to unite the Democrats, calling Democrats CIA or Pentagon plants is not the way toward it.

This is nothing like the Swiftboaters, who, as an external force, should have been dealt with, well, swiftly. Most of these people are fellow Democrats who need to be given the proper motivation to come back around into the party.


Stop it with this.

Do you really believe Hillary's hopeless campaign lasted five months after Iowa because she was popular? She was a hopeless failure propped up by the same tricksters who gave us Bush-Cheney, so I don't buy the "internal Democratic issue" line for a minute.

It's pretty clear that it isn't amateurs, which means it won't go away by ignoring it. I think we need to be aware of all forms of disinformation wherever they come from because it's only going to intensify as the GE heats up, and things are pretty bad already.

as disagreeing with YOUR point. You keep telling people what to do, "stop it", "chill out" and so on. Why can you simply not accept that people may have an opinion different to yours? Why do you feel the need to command others what to do? What bothers and concerns us varies between individuals. You get the right to ignore the shit that you want to ignore, but not demand that others follow your lead. I do not see anyone telling you TO get pissed, so why do you feel the need to tell others not to?

You've stated your opinion clearly and often. If others choose not to fall in line, it does not mean that they "don't get it", simply that they disagree with you.

PS I agree completely that telling someone to "chill" about something they are passionate about is quite annoying and condescending. Think about something that really matters to you and that others simply brush it off and tell you to chill, it's no biggie. Would that seem the slightest bit arrogant to you?

He hadn't the attack in the way anyone would have handled charges that were completely false - give the media ample proof and show that it was linked to his competitors. He provided FAR more proof that they were lying to the media than Bill Clinton did on all the charges he had thrown at him put together.

The problem was that he faced a media unlike any before. First of all, they asked for no supporting proof for charges at variance with the official record and from people on record saying conflicting things. How many lies can usually be told and identified as lies before an accuser is discredited?

The facts are that before the August attack, the media had:

Navy records - intact, spanning the interval and all positive
The medals themselves - Kerry didn't award them to himself
The Nixon tapes - he checked Kerry out and he was a clean cut war hero
The guys on the boats when he got the medals were 100% with him

People need to see this for what it was - a media condoned character assassination.

The charges that he didn't fight back mostly stem from the Clinton allies - Carville, Begala, McAuliffe etc - NOT A ONE OF THEM WITH A FRACTION OF KERRY'S integrity. First off maybe if they were actually backing Kerry, it would have helped. These post 2004 charges are in fact a second swiftboating led by Bill Clinton.

-

I don't know how many time Dem pols aligned with the Clintons (Rahm Emanuel for example) have alluded to Kerry's "failure" to refute the swiftboat attacks that summer, and I fully agree, he countered them personally every time they were brought up which was in just about every interview. I heard several.

As to this sub rosa anti-Obama campaign, it sure looks like the swiftboats are coming back, aimed at the same audience, backed by the same crowd and promoted by the same damn mouthpieces.

It's worth keeping in mind that the Internet was invented and developed by the Pentagon and the main conduits are owned and controlled by the US government.

I doubt most of them were even DLC'ers.

Do we pretend they don't exist?

Just look forward and win this. Don't let this petty stuff get to you. It's truly unimportant, and things will fall into place if we keep our eyes on the ball.

I will not let you make me feel guilty for pointing out the ugliness my state Democrats are pulling, and I will not ignore this crap from whoever they are.

You need to take a step back and look at what is going on from the outside.

Put my post on ignore if you wish.

I guess you think my posts about Florida are overwrought as well.

Poor emotional Floridian.

You do not have to read it.

And you know it.

Or maybe the People's Front of Judea...

One might say they are carrying the water of the right wing hate machine in their rhetoric ....

Why even pay heed to this extremism ?

I will ignore it.

Looking at these groups, it's become pretty obvious that they're just divide and conquer projects. They're poison and every clear thinking person/women will learn to steer clear of them before long.

People continue to baffle me. They support Ed O'Reilly who is running against Kerry because of the IWR, while they support Hillary who gleefully voted for the IWR and never apologized, but oppose the man who got it right and had the courage to stand up and say so. Just fucking nuts.

And at least I'll give Taylor Marsh credit - she isn't falling in with these clowns. She seems to be warming to at least supporting the Dem nominee.

The rest of these losers are frauds. I'm willing to bet quite a few of them are really Republicans, and would have drooled over being able to turn and rip apart Hillary in the GE.

I heard about this PUMA thing last week and thought it was the most hypocritical bullshit I ever heard. That, and I still have no idea what exactly Barack Obama did to piss them off (I never heard him say anything remotely sexist, and he's been way more classy than Hillary has been). Perhaps the truth lies in some of the blog titles listed:

writehillaryin.com
clintondems.com
swingcrats.org
hillarysupporters.com
clintons4mccain.com
womenforfairpolitics.com
pumaparty.com
savagepolitics.com
seatourdelegates.com
noquarterusa.net
liberalrapture.com
pumapac.org
petitionforhowarddeantoresignasdncchair
millionwomenmarch.blogspot.com
obamawtf.blogspot.com
rezkowatch.blogspot.com
pumapac.blogspot.com
mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com
worstlittlecaucusintexas.blogspot.com
caucusconfession.blogspot.com
caucuscheating.blogspot.com
florida-michigan.blogspot.com
hillaryorbust.blogspot.com
politicaldiscontent.blogspot.com
independentsformccain.blogspot.com
floridademandsrepresentation
latinosforclinton.com
paresidentsforhillary.com
democrats-against-obama.org
knowobama.org
reclusiveleftist.com
bitterpoliticz

Like I said, a bunch of phonies.

pathetic, sad and completely not based in reality!

Those are not Democrats, NOT AT ALL. Those are McSame drones conning disgruntled HRC supporters not to vote for the Democratic Nominee that won fair and square. This is the only tactic that they have that has any potential of making any difference in this Presidential Race, without this tactic McBush will LOSE in a landslide.

Some of the things said were just disgusting and should have been refuted by Dean and Obama. I will most likely plug my nose and vote for the Dem. candidate - not because of who he is but because of the shabby way she was treated. I'm not totally crazy about Obama but don't have that much against him - but more towards the Dem establishment and his supporters.

I still think it sucks that a woman with her experience was beat by someone who just got into the senate and the only thing about him that I see as superior is his speaking skills. I believe that the media handed it to Obama - they only started questioning things about him when they saw that Hillary was basically done for.

It seems that a lot of Democrats really fall for a person because of the speeches they (Dean and Obama) give as opposed to their experience, and record, etc.

Obama came in first and Hillary came in third in Iowa, when Hillary had a huge media advantage and was constantly being called "the inevitable nominee". The reason she came in third was that so many Dem primary voters are fed up with this war that she voted to authorize. She totally underestimated how much primary voters wanted a candidate who took a stand against the war, and that's what gave Obama his opening.

It was a close race, but it wouldn't have been if Hillary had voted against the IWR.

You said:

"It seems that a lot of Democrats really fall for a person because of the speeches they (Dean and Obama) give as opposed to their experience, and record, etc."

Not really true at all.

will more than likely consist of a few thousand. This is probably one of the few subgroups that I would consider to be inherently racist. And its not because they don't support Obama, but its their foaming at the mouth pursuit of any AA politicians or pundits that won't say the election was "stolen."


The other day on HCF and CH (DU rejects) there were posts about the democratic congressional candidates who supported Obama, and how to support the republicans running against them. :wtf: :wtf:


Many of them might be democrats, but I won't lose any sleep over them leaving the party if thats the case. Good luck getting McCain to support the ERA, or any women's rights issue for that matter.

but that still suggests to me that either they represent a very small segment of Democrats who Supported Senator Clinton, or this is part of the republican talking points or both

A major part of the strategy is to sign on new voters

I really do not believe that this represent a significant portion of Clinton people. Let's be honest, with the Supreme Court at stake, along with gender and civil rights the biggest issues, and the Iraq war chipping away at our resources, healthcare, medicare, social security, and jobs, I find it very hard to believe that this is widespread

faux will push it because that is their agenda

Ignore this group.

Ignore the sabotage going on in Florida right now.

You will sleep better at night.

Hide from it, pretend it is not serious.

Pretend that FL Dem leaders are not trying to hurt the party.

Go ahead, be comfy with it all.

Two more FL Dems weigh in against party...seriously negative stuff. Won't endorse Obama.

Just ignore it. It will go away.

Ignore this rant by another Democrat in FL.

Florida...breaking party rules was merely an act of civil disobedience. Alcee Hastings gets bitter.

Pay no attention.

Ignore their public pouting. It won't hurt us at all.

Florida Democratic leaders get their pout on publicly.

Ignore it, pay no attention. Let every one heal.

That'll work.

Then be sure to tell me to chill out....that works really well.

They mean no harm. Right? Ignore them they will go away.

Let's ignore the Florida Democrats who refuse to endorse Obama. Ignore them, it is fine....they will come around.

They mean no harm.

And that treasonous pig drug smuggling Larry Johnson terrorist should be in prison. At least.

:shrug:

And Nader will take only a small percentage. Nothing to worry about at all. There is nothing we can do anyway, so why worry.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977367488

Hell, it's just like all those FL primary posts I wrote....never mattered anyway. :shrug:

Just ignore it. Let the party ignore it. Best that way.

into the WA Attorney General for god knows what and on and on and on and on. They're loud, they have a keyboard and they get attention.

Don't feed them.

I don't.

I have a suggestion...put me on ignore, cause I ain't hushing.

I just come down on the side of ignoring them until / unless they step into a public realm to spread their cr@p. While they chatter at each other in private, they're only damaging themselves.

This is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. Let's confront them vigorously.

The republicans may be having cash problems, but they could at least afford to hire a web designer.

:crazy:

Going after Obama in the GE makes them REPUBLICANS.

they're Republicans in Republican clothing. They're not supporting the Democratic nominee, so fuck 'em. All we can do is combat their misinformation and smear tactics wherever we can.

:rofl:

We can and should ignore this stuff.

People can stand around and shout that we need to "do something"...OK...but what?

"progressive" blogs and organizations like MoveOn have been calling for the defeat of Dems like Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, and a host of Dem congressmen for years now because they don't like their politics.

I don't agree with going after the nominee but are you surprised there's blowback?

I am speechless. :eyes:

:eyes:

Interesting, though, I read an article recently where many Dem congressmen in red states are no longer taking the MoveOns of the world seriously since there's been no bite to their bark.

I am a proud member of MoveOn, will remain so. I never saw them against Hillary, just FOR Obama.

There is a difference.

no one likes to see office holders they like targeted by groups. Until now (on the left side), "progressives" had that market covered.

That's how you get through the gates in party politics.

Defeating Democrats in the general election is Republican and gets you tombstoned.

You have 24 hours and 22 minutes. I suggest you get on board.

Defeating Democrats in the general election is Republican and gets you tombstoned.

You have 24 hours and 22 minutes. I suggest you get on board.

Ha ha. Tell you what. Show me the post where I've said I oppose Obama, then alert it.

Your attitude comes across as pro-Puma to me.

Your attitude comes across as pro-Puma to me.

I'm not responsible for your perceptions. Now, about that link...?

you will see that I stated clearly in a direct response to the OP that targeting Kerry in the primary is fair game.

You, however, have compared that numerous times in more than one thread to the actions of PUMA targeting Obama in the GE.

Moveon legitimately targets Democrats in primaries, with good cause. Your posting history in this thread compares those actions to the actions of disruptors who wish to target Obama in the GE.

No link needed, jsut read your own posts in this thread.

But think targeting any sitting Dem in a primary is fair game. The OP cheered when Hillary was targeted in '06 but is appalled Kerry is being targeted.

Moveon legitimately targets Democrats in primaries, with good cause.

What good cause? They disagree with Democrats in red districts?

Your posting history in this thread compares those actions to the actions of disruptors who wish to target Obama in the GE.

My posting history in this thread suggests "progressives" no longer corner the market in targeting Democrats in primaries.

I love the way DU software gets all wonky at times.

Obama IS a Centrist.

lol

Of course. Obama is a centrist and probably keeps a DLC policy manual under his pillow.

But the OP's outrage of Kerry being targeted is ironic.

This has nothing to do with MoveOn. These are disruptors and easily led people who are being manipulated.

However, I would expect in the coming election cycles that MoveOn darlings will also be targeted.

These are disruptors and easily led people who are being manipulated.

Kinda like MoveOn members.

Are you a part of this? Is that why you "expect in the coming election cycles that MoveOn darlings will also be targeted."

... of the fringes.

I guess, MF, for those who didn't get started (as your blog used to say) during the Dean run of 2003-2004, political movements are easy to predict.

"Perhaps worst of all, the Bush administration recuscitated a brand of politics not seen since the end of the Cold War. . . . The PR strategy worked; by the fall of 2002, a majority of Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and at least 66 percent (falsely) believed that the Iraqi leader had been personally involved in the 911 attacks." (page 293)

In fact, he dwells at length on the manipulations and deceptions of the Bush administration, and there's no warning against "conspiracy mongering" that I can find.

Though he admits he believes Democratic ideology is more grounded in fact than that of the GOP, Obama expresses disdain for the conspiracy theories of the fringes, "of America being hijacked by an evil cabal." He says the left and right have become "mirror images of each other," whose purpose is "not to pursuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes."

I believe page page 24.

"I won't deny my preference for the story the Democrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact." (page 24)

Yes, he does go on to say that "there is another story to be told," but that's the story of individuals who go to work every day and have no understanding of the "evil cabal" in its intricacies. But he doesn't deny that it exists.

Where are you getting this from anyway, if I may ask?

"I won't deny my preference for the story the Democrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact." (page 24)

And I wrote: Though he admits he believes Democratic ideology is more grounded in fact than that of the GOP,...

-----

Does Obama NOT speak of the conspiracy theories of the fringes, "of America being hijacked by an evil cabal?"

Does he NOT say the left and right have become "mirror images of each other," whose purpose is "not to pursuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes?"

I believe he does on page 24.

Where are you getting this from anyway, if I may ask?

Why do you think I'm getting it from "somewhere?" I can read. He wrote a book.

which seems to be coming from some RW talking point sheet. Why would you "believe" a quotation was on page 24 if you had the book in front of you?

I don't have the book in front of me. I made notes months ago and scribbled page numbers down.

See, had I said emphatically that it WAS on page 24, you would have again avoided the money quotes and made the point of me getting the page number wrong your focus.

Now, tell me. Does Obama NOT speak of the conspiracy theories of the fringes, "of America being hijacked by an evil cabal?"

Does he NOT say the left and right have become "mirror images of each other," whose purpose is "not to pursuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes?"

If my interpretation is garbled, then please tell us what meant by the fringes and "America being hijacked by an evil cabal" and the left and right becoming "mirror images of each other," whose purpose is "not to pursuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes?"

i.e., your twisted talking points, not the book. But you wouldn't know that if you weren't actually reading at the book, which you obviously aren't.

...but since you have the book right in front of you, stop avoiding the money quotes (like you just did again) and give us the EXACT words used. I dare you.

But you STILL avoid the money quotes! LOL!

Tell you what. Here's the passage. Tell us what Obama meant, oh wise one:

specifically, "disdain" for "fringe" "conspiracy mongering," which is just some oppo troll's self-serving spin, like the Reagan stuff.

The point is that the excerpts don't support YOUR money quotes, specifically, "disdain" for "fringe" "conspiracy mongering," which is just some oppo troll's self-serving spin, like the Reagan stuff.

dis·dain –verb (used with object)
to look upon or treat with contempt; despise; scorn.

fringe - noun
something regarded as peripheral, marginal, secondary, or extreme in relation to something else.

So you believe Obama APPROVES of "the explanations of both the right and the left.. stories of conspiracy, of America being hijacked by an evil cabal... becoming mirror images of each other?"

And you don't think Obama believes those that inhabit HIS explanation of the right and left are "fringe?"

LOL!

You're spinning away.

like those by Fox News which he mentions, and yes, he avoids the tone of disdain by admitting a) an element of truth in them and b) his own attraction to their liberal counterparts.

It's later (pp. 290-301) that he launches a serious criticism of Bush-Cheney disinfo campaigns, and he doesn't "disdain" his own analysis of 911 as a psy-op, which you might characterize as "fringe" "conspiracy mongering."

You're trying to say he likes the fact the left and the right are mirror images of each other, given to conspiracy theories.

Spin - Spin -Spin!

In no way does Obama say THIS is a media narrative:

“In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other. They are stories of conspiracy, of America being hijacked by an evil cabal. Like all good conspiracy theories, both tales contain just enough truth to satisfy those predisposed to believe in them, without admitting any contradictions that might shake up those assumptions. Their purpose is not to persuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes — and lure just enough new adherents to beat the other side into submission.

That's on page 24. :hi:

Thanks for playing though. :hi:

Thanks for playing though!!

And maybe you should start a thread on how MoveOn is a net loss to the party. You seem to feel very strongly about it.

maybe you should start a thread on how MoveOn is a net loss to the party. You seem to feel very strongly about it.

Nah, this one is fine.

He's not fond of Obama either. And he hates fringe people no matter who they may be...and includes most everyone in that category..MoveOn more than PUMA. PUMA seems ok in his opinion..a blowback for MoveOn.

As someone told you upthread:

the problem starts when you interpret disagreement as condescension.

Then, when you inject yourself into the conversation in your reaction, the condescension that is inherent in any conceivable response to what you have then done confirms this idea in your mind that you were being looked down upon all along.

One will always feel looked down upon when they make themselves the issue of conversation.

that puts one down because one has passion for a cause.

I would not post here if I minded disagreement.

But I am passionate about certain things. I think Florida was used by Hillary Clinton to divide our party, I just never could quite prove it.

But I posted truth.

Meanwhile you have had your fun mocking me at your own little blog. You get your jollies being humiliating to others.

That is sad.

That is something I do not do.

That's a right wing talking point. To Republicans, anyone who supports Democrats is "fringe" "Marxist" "terrorist enabler". Like Obama. lol

It's silly on its face, just as comparing these PUMA wackjobs to MoveOn is silly.

Obnoxious and always with very little to say other than insults.

me, too.

justsaynodeal.com was registered by Diane Mantouvalos.

My favorite quote from Diane:

"I'm not even a Democrat," Mantouvalos said.

Be sure this guy is against Clinton, Bayh, ... If the guy was a moderate democrat, I could understand that, but he is none of that.

Sore losers, that is all they are.

One, the idea that this is a centrist blowback would make more sense if Obama weren't a centrist candidate.

Two, perhaps you've forgotten who started this little affair in 1985. Is a response to blowback itself blowback?

Two, perhaps you've forgotten who started this little affair in 1985. Is a response to blowback itself blowback?

Sure. Jesse Jackson. But that was 1987. Unless you're suggesting the mere creation of an organization to woo back Reagan Democrats was an affront of some sort.

How do you figure?

:shrug:

I'll wait for that 1985 explanation from you.

:shrug:

"Unless you're suggesting the mere creation of an organization to woo back Reagan Democrats was an affront of some sort."

Is that what you're suggesting?

Not an affront so much, no, but an organization dedicated to wooing back Reagan Democrats by coopting Republican ideas isn't probably going to be getting any donations from liberals.

You're surprised there was blowback?

Now, how about your reasoning on Jesse?

Not an affront so much, no, but an organization dedicated to wooing back Reagan Democrats by coopting Republican ideas isn't probably going to be getting any donations from liberals.

No, by promoting policies resembling the pre '68 Democratic party (before we started losing landslide national elections.)

Jesse Jackson - the first "attack" I can recall - labeling them "Democrats for the leisure class.

Since then the "progressive" line is "I can hit you, but you can't hit me back."

Edit what you like. Don't expect me to be impressed when you edit in a question several minutes after the original post then demand that it be answered, with no notation in the subject line that you made a substantial edit, but by all means, edit what you like.

When I read it, there was nothing after "Jackson". Keep trying, though.

No, by promoting policies resembling the pre '68 Democratic party (before we started losing landslide national elections.)


What policies were those? Signing trade pacts that send American manufacturing jobs overseas? Kicking poor people off welfare in a bubble economy?

Jesse Jackson - the first "attack" I can recall - labeling them "Democrats for the leisure class.

He was correct in that assessment. Don't be jealous.

Since then the "progressive" line is "I can hit you, but you can't hit me back."

Yes, pity the poor centrist - just trying to get along with those wacky leftists. :rofl:

What policies were those? Signing trade pacts that send American manufacturing jobs overseas? Kicking poor people off welfare in a bubble economy?

1. What trade pacts were signed in 1985?
2. JFK and Bobby Kennedy both proposed welfare reform. Bill Clinton enacted it. Barack Obama supports it. But which welfare policies were enacted by the DLC in 1985?

I'm still mystified by your "1985" reference. I imagine you are, too, which is why you're trying to divert from it.

"But that was 1987. Unless you're suggesting the mere creation of an organization to woo back Reagan Democrats was an affront of some sort." the correction of a spelling error. :D

1. What trade pacts were signed in 1985?

None of which I'm aware. Obviously, I mean NAFTA. Your point was that the DLC promoted (not signed, promoted) policies that resembled pre-1968 Dem stances. The DLC certainly promoted NAFTA. Please answer my question now: is signing trade pacts that send American manufacturing jobs overseas what you had in mind?

2. JFK and Bobby Kennedy both proposed welfare reform. Bill Clinton enacted it. Barack Obama supports it. But which welfare policies were enacted by the DLC in 1985?

None. But you knew that. Now you can answer my question: was throwing poor people off welfare in a bubble economy a pre-1968 Democratic position?

I'm still mystified by your "1985" reference.

No you aren't. :D

The DLC certainly promoted NAFTA.

But not in 1985.

was throwing poor people off welfare in a bubble economy a pre-1968 Democratic position

Welfare reform was a Democratic position of FDR, JFK, and RFK.

Now, 1985?

before I mentioned the organization?

For any of the assembled throng who might have read down this far, wyldwolf is quite aware that the Democratic Leadership Council was formed in 1985.

Welfare reform was a Democratic position of FDR, JFK, and RFK.

That wasn't what I asked. I'll rephrase, since you're having trouble: was it a position of Roosevelt or either Kennedy to throw poor folks off welfare in the middle of a bubble economy with little to no supports in place and a downturn looming?

"this little affair."

was it a position of Roosevelt or either Kennedy to throw poor folks off welfare in the middle of a bubble economy with little to no supports in place and a downturn looming?

Did someone do this in 1985? :shrug:

I know you have a love/hate relationship with the fact that most American liberals look to the Democratic Party as their standard-bearer in the electoral process, but so it goes. The "little affair" to which I refer, of course, is the intraparty conflict that has been going on for two decades and whose opening shot was fired with the creation of an organization dedicated to moving the party to the right.

Did someone do this in 1985?

Of course not. It was in 1996. I'd ask you to quit dodging my question, but I know you won't.

I await your next round of sophistry. I've missed you, wyld, I really have. :D

The "little affair" to which I refer, of course, is the intraparty conflict that has been going on for two decades and whose opening shot was fired with the creation of an organization dedicated to moving the party to the right.

No, right back to the middle. So even in 1985, the left couldn't stand competition. Or is it actually some odd envy because the left has never been able to formally organize?

Anyway, according to you, this "little affair" began with the creation of a little group inside a hotel room and called for verbal attacks from the left? Merely existing caused such outrage from the left? Thin skinned!

And since the focus of your entire conversation with me centers on 1985, you've sure tried to dance away from it!

No, right back to the middle.

It's ok - you're not the only one who has an odd idea of "middle".

So even in 1985, the left couldn't stand competition.

Hey, you're the one who thinks that this PUMA nonsense is "blowback".

Or is it actually some odd envy because the left has never been able to formally organize?

Organization across the left has been and is a challenge, yes, primarily because there are so many people with various needs and not much cash. It's easier for "centrists" - just follow the money.

Anyway, according to you, this "little affair" began with the creation of a little group inside a hotel room and called for verbal attacks from the left? Merely existing caused such outrage from the left? Thin skinned!

One of the reasons I like sparring with you is because it teaches me more about how "centrists" and others to the right frame debates. Ah yes, Al From and five friends, sitting in a hotel room and slaving the night away in an attempt to save the Party! Why, they're just another interest group! A book club, even! Hell, they probably knit! :D

And since the focus of your entire conversation with me centers on 1985, you've sure tried to dance away from it!

Well, no. I mentioned 1985 because that's when Al and an assortment of nonthreatening fuzzy bunnies got together and formed the DLC. You're the one who's taken the 1985 thing and spun it into several strange lines of questioning.

Hey, you're the one who thinks that this PUMA nonsense is "blowback".

Which has what to do with not being able to handle competition?

Organization across the left has been and is a challenge, yes, primarily because there are so many people with various needs and not much cash. It's easier for "centrists" - just follow the money.

That's very true. :shrug: But of course almost half a decade before the DLC was formed, there was the Democratic Business Council (that operates to this day) operating under the umbrella of the DNC that took in all kinds of money.

Ah yes, Al From and five friends, sitting in a hotel room and slaving the night away in an attempt to save the Party! Why, they're just another interest group! A book club, even! Hell, they probably knit.

Nah, you like it because you learn a little history. Yes, a handful of people met in a hotel room and formed what became the DLC. And in just 7 years they put a president in the White House. The American left, around for decades, still can't do it.

I mentioned 1985 because that's when Al and an assortment of nonthreatening fuzzy bunnies got together and formed the DLC.

Correct. Their very existence started this whole "affair." :)

Which has what to do with not being able to handle competition?

If I understand your argument upthread correctly (and I'm sure you'll correct me if not), centrists are so upset at the centrist losing the nomination to the other centrist that they won't vote for the other centrist in the general. If you can't even handle competition from your own side, I'd say you have a problem with handling competition overall.

But of course almost half a decade before the DLC was formed, there was the Democratic Business Council (that operates to this day) operating under the umbrella of the DNC that took in all kinds of money.

Which has what to do with the left?

Nah, you like it because you learn a little history.

You keep promising and promising. I'll keep looking. :)

Yes, a handful of people met in a hotel room and formed what became the DLC. And in just 7 years they put a president in the White House. The American left, around for decades, still can't do it.

It certainly helped to have the Republicans lay much of the ideological groundwork during the 80s, though. We don't get that kind of assistance.

Correct. Their very existence started this whole "affair."

You see my point. Good.

...your contention the left is intolerant of even slightly different viewpoints.

If I understand your argument upthread correctly (and I'm sure you'll correct me if not), centrists are so upset at the centrist losing the nomination to the other centrist that they won't vote for the other centrist in the general. If you can't even handle competition from your own side, I'd say you have a problem with handling competition overall.

My argument upthread? There's a possibility some in the party (and yes, outside of the party) may be pushing back against the left. Sure. Obama? Not a leftist. A great portion of his supporters? Leftists.

Which has what to do with the left?

You're the one who made the distinction that before the DLC, the left was in such harmony in the Democratic party and wasn't kept down by "the man" and his dirty filthy money.

You keep promising and promising. I'll keep looking.

Yeah, I've point out a few historical points you over the years that you didn't know, that you were surprised to learn, and that you then tried to dance around. FDR's welfare reform intentions, for example. Before Irag, each major military venture the US has been involved in in the last 100 years was under a Democratic president (you called it "the luck of the draw" or "coincidene" or something like that) is another one.

It certainly helped to have the Republicans lay much of the ideological groundwork during the 80s, though. We don't get that kind of assistance.

Like what? Be specific. Want to discuss ideological groundwork? Let's do it.

My argument upthread? There's a possibility some in the party (and yes, outside of the party) may be pushing back against the left. Sure. Obama? Not a leftist. A great portion of his supporters? Leftists.

Centrist voters are going to refuse to vote for Obama, even though he is a centrist, because he gets progressive support? And you call the left thin-skinned?

You're the one who made the distinction that before the DLC, the left was in such harmony in the Democratic party and wasn't kept down by "the man" and his dirty filthy money.

Don't put words in my mouth.

FDR's welfare reform intentions, for example.

Hey, that reminds me that you never did answer my question about whether or not throwing poor people off welfare in a bubble economy was a pre-1968 Democratic position. Can I ask you to answer that, please?

Like what? Be specific. Want to discuss ideological groundwork? Let's do it.

How about you answer my question on trade pacts from last night first.

Centrist voters are going to refuse to vote for Obama, even though he is a centrist, because he gets progressive support?

Some might. But that isn't my point. Centrists are definitely pushing back (as I've mentioned in this thread) against the left's targeting of them.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't. You're the one who said of the DLC "follow the money" and that the left has never had money to organize.

Hey, that reminds me that you never did answer my question about whether or not throwing poor people off welfare in a bubble economy was a pre-1968 Democratic position. Can I ask you to answer that, please?

Because that wasn't what our conversation is about. As uusual, you try to tilt the conversation in another direction. The point isn't whether it's a good idea. The point is Welfare reform is a fact of Democratic ideology - From FDR to JFK. From RFK to Clinton and Obama.

How about you answer my question on trade pacts from last night first.

Again, you were talking about 1985. There were no trade pacts from the DLC that year. Or the next. Or even the next. :)

Centrists are definitely pushing back (as I've mentioned in this thread) against the left's targeting of them.

That's not surprising - didn't expect them to go quietly into that good night.

You're the one who said of the DLC "follow the money" and that the left has never had money to organize.

Certainly not the same kind of money, that's true.

The point isn't whether it's a good idea. The point is Welfare reform is a fact of Democratic ideology - From FDR to JFK. From RFK to Clinton and Obama.

The fact that you consider whether or not it was the right thing to do to be irrelevant is telling, but again unsurprising.

I suspect you know that "welfare reform" can mean a variety of different things. Was the form it took in 1996 reflective of the ideology of Roosevelt or either Kennedy? (I know, I keep asking you these direct questions, even though you don't like them.)

Again, you were talking about 1985. There were no trade pacts from the DLC that year. Or the next. Or even the next.

It must be horrible for you to not be able to answer a relatively simple question.

Certainly not the same kind of money, that's true.

On the contrary, the DBC (est. 1981) takes corporate money by the truckload.

The fact that you consider whether or not it was the right thing to do to be irrelevant is telling, but again unsurprising.

Not relevant and telling in a fact-based conversation. For example, I could factually state a house is painted blue. It is completely irrelevant whether I like blue or not.

I suspect you know that "welfare reform" can mean a variety of different things. Was the form it took in 1996 reflective of the ideology of Roosevelt or either Kennedy? (I know, I keep asking you these direct questions, even though you don't like them.)

Yes, welfare reform CAN mean a variety of things, but in the cases on the mentioned Presidents (and presidential contender) it does not. FDR said "this business of relief must end." JFK explored welfare-to-work programs. RFK stated "welfare should be a hand-up, not a hand-out." Bill Clinton modeled his Arkansas initiative, then his Presidential ones, partially on JFK's plans. Barack Obama stated in 'The Audacity Of Hope" that Clinton's welfare reform was needed.

It must be horrible for you to not be able to answer a relatively simple question.

It must be horrible for you to stay on task.

On the contrary, the DBC (est. 1981) takes corporate money by the truckload.

And funnels it to progressive causes?

Not relevant and telling in a fact-based conversation. For example, I could factually state a house is painted blue. It is completely irrelevant whether I like blue or not.

Interesting analogy. Do you view what happens to the least priviledged among us to be a question on par with one's preference in paint color?

Here, I'll keep it fact-based for you. Is it likely that the removal of welfare supports, without adequate work supports or even jobs in place, will be detrimental to the lives of many whose welfare supports are removed?

but in the cases on the mentioned Presidents (and presidential contender) it does not.

So Roosevelt and the Kennedys called for a five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits? Got quotes?

It must be horrible for you to stay on task.

It is difficult at times to keep you on task, yes, but my experiences teaching children with attention deficit disorders have proven helpful in this regard.

And funnels it to progressive causes?

And funnels it to Democrats.

Interesting analogy. Do you view what happens to the least priviledged among us to be a question on par with one's preference in paint color?

It's called a logical analogy. Funny thing about fact-based conversations.

So Roosevelt and the Kennedys called for a five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits? Got quotes?

No, they called for welfare reform. If it had been 6 or 7 or 8 year limits, would it have been better for you? The fact is "welfare reform."

It is difficult at times to keep you on task, yes, but my experiences teaching children with attention deficit disorders have proven helpful in this regard.

I'm always willing to stay on task and not get bogged down in your constant twisty-turny multi-directional drifts.

Simple. You said the DLC started this in 1985. I asked for specifics for that years. You could give none.

I bid you adieu until next time. :)

the first thing I saw was somebody complaining about Congressman Ellis swearing in on the Koran. It's discouraging to see RW Islamophobic bullshit on the blog of a supposed DEMOCRAT. If these people are really Hillary supporters let them fucking GO. GOOD RIDDANCE. they sound like right wingers to me.

I'll be in Denver and would love to cover the "million woman march"...

:rofl:

And no, you can't count the people who are in Denver for other reasons. . .

Hillary supporters can easily put together a million woman march-- didn't Hillary, after all get over 18 million votes giving her the popular vote???

There are petitions not only to the DNC, to networks, to delegates, etc.

Last I checked, the numbers are growing daily.

There's no chance that a measurable number of them will refuse to embrace reality and "protest" a primary result that even the candidate herself isn't challenging. I believe that most Clinton supporters are good Democrats who know the damage John McCain will do to this country and the planet if elected. The two loons who started this website are either Republicans or among the small handful of exceptions. Period. The time to put an end to this nonsense has LONG since passed.

Seriously, do people honestly believe that is not possible that some people will register dem in order to do nothing more than create fear and panic and a division since it's obvious the GOP has not proven their worth at all, all they can do is get behind enemy lines and attempt to divide and conquer, perhaps these plants need to be either outed or ignored....

I'm sorry but I cannot for the life of me see any dem regardless of their personal choice of candidate turn and threaten to vote repub...can't see it unless it was their plan all along...it makes no sense at all and only proves ignorance...i wish people would fight them as they should, they are foes, nothing more nothing less....

And I firmly believe that many of those infiltrators reside in Florida, I mean, 2000 proved it to me...and there they sit still, waiting, watching, planning for their next attack on our democracy...they should be exposed by now, shunned, shut down,, not sure why they still exist?

Be assured, while there are some purported socialist accepting Obama as the lesser of two evils most recognize that Obama's a neoliberal and not 'left' at all.

I think 'latte drinking liberals' sums it up nicely. Truth is, liberal is not really 'left'.

Binary thinking is so restrictive.

NoQuarter I think is still anti-Obama. But some of the commentors at TalkLeft and Taylor Marsh did not seem too eager to go along.

.

if she *really is* dedicated to helping Obama, and not undermining him.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

God, I can't look at it even for a second without laughing out loud!

Thus far, we have received only a handful of interest emails, so, as the list grows we will try to put people in touch with one another. Please all be aware, we are not an organized group, but 2 concerned citizens and loyal Clinton supporters, who put up this blog to serve as an organizing mechanism for anyone who would like to see this event happen, as when we searched for information last week a lot of blogs were talking about this idea, but there was no central website for people to start doing anything about making it happen.

http://millionwomenmarch.blogspot.com/



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:








:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh God, somebody give me some oxygen! I'm laughing so hard it hurts!

"2 concerned citizens and loyal Clinton supporters"

:rofl:

I figure they're two young staffers of McCain for PResident with a lot of time on tehir hands and no talent for web site design.

and combined with the logo, it's just too much! :rofl:

oh, sorry, my cold brutal logical is getting in the way of their ridiculous self-agrandizement.

only one thing for us blog happy jerks to do, and that is fight fire with fire: sign on to these sites, and start laying some astroturf of our own, we'll be double secret agents.

we'll pose as fellow spurned Dem women, who oddly enough, are starting to have reservations about throwing the country under the bus just to vent about Hillary.

we'll start imaginary drives to enlist in the military, you know: all the disaffected Hillary voters can go fight the Iraq war for the next four years so all those kids stuck out there don't have to pay the price just so "we" can make a point.

Seriously. This is going nowhere.

Edit to add:

Holy fucking christ: http://www.hcsfjm.com/

Some of these folks, it seems to me, are acting as if Hillary should have gotten the nomination merely for BEING a woman, like some kind of warped affirmative action.

good work!