Newfound Respect for PUMA

Politics is a strange, and often fascinating, process. People get involved with politics for any of a number of reasons. Some people view politics as a game. Others view it as a participatory sport. Some see it as a means to make a living, or in some cases, a fortune. I can understand all of those views, but I don't share them.

To me, politics is a means to an end. In my view, politics should be used to advance an agenda. When played for any other reason, such as fun, to gain power, for profit, or even as a means to pass the time, politics becomes about you. When this happens, politics ceases to be a means to an end and becomes nothing more than an ego trip.

What does all of this have to do with PUMA? It's really quite simple. The people in PUMA and like-minded groups have a purpose. You may not like their goals. I know I don't. You and I may disagree with their tactics, or their rhetoric, or even their goals, but that doesn't take away the fact that they are working towards an end result.

As stated above, I believe that without a goal politics becomes little more than an ego trip. Real politics is far more. It is a group of people working towards a common goal. By that measure, PUMA is participating in real politics.

Like thousands of other political buffs, I watched the RBC meeting and observed the outrage at the result. I have followed the formation of PUMA, seen their representatives on television, and read their comments on blogs. At first, I thought this was nothing more than being sore losers. The more I've thought about it, the more I realized that they are being true to the democratic process. They have a goal and are working towards that goal.

Now, while I disagree with their methods and their goals, I respect the fact that they are working together to accomplish something. That's more than I can say about many of the people on this site.

MYDD has been on my reading list since 2004, as have several other political blogs. I lurked in the background during the primary and watched the flame wars and constant back-and-forth going on between the different sides of the primary race. It wasn't pretty, but it also wasn't anything new to me.

My first campaign was the 1964 Presidential campaign. I was in my last year of high-school and joined the Young Dems. I'll admit my joining into the political process had as much to do with a girl as it did with wanting to participate, but the girl wasn't the only reason. That was the year Goldwater tried to take this country to the far-right. I was dead set against him and worked hard that year to be sure he didn't get into the White House.

We achieved our goal that year. People pulled together and worked hard to get there. This year, PUMA has a goal and they are working hard to reach that goal. While I think their chances are non-existent, at least they have a goal. Do you?

I have seen little sign that most of the people on this site really have any goal, other than to re-fight the primary battle or to pour salt on old wounds. Instead of working together, we are fighting amongst ourselves. Instead of pulling for a common goal, we are pushing each other further apart. Is this what the majority of members on this site want?

Ask yourself if you have a goal this election cycle? If you do have a goal, are you working to advance it?

I have a goal. It's the same one I had 44 years ago - to see a Democrat in the White House. What's yours?



Display:


I have no Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 1)

Fanatical groups do share a common purpose, but that in itself is not a reason for admiration. They are above board in acknowledging their hatred for Obama, which puts them ahead of their stealthier counterparts on the integrity scale.

Your point is extremely important as far as MyDD is concerned. The stated reason for its very existence provides the answer for what the goal you desire ought to be: The election of Democrats up and down the ticket.

I'm with you.


by xdem on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:20:25 AM EST

Sorry, no respect for PUMA. (2.00 / 4)

They're working against what should be our common goal: Putting Barack Obama -- or, to be more generic, a Democrat -- in the White House. By working against Obama, they work against what they once believed in: The same policies Hillary supported. Healthcare, women's rights, gay rights, protecting the environment, withdrawing from Iraq, etc.

That's what most of us are working toward. Not to say we won't get mad at each other -- I've been uncharacteristically angry the last couple of days, as many of you may have noticed, but after a bit of venting, it's mostly passed. Sure, a lot of people are wandering around aimlessly, but most people have a purpose and a goal. Why people are picking at each other so much over the last couple of days is beyond me. Maybe it's something in the water.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:25:04 AM EST

We WILL put a Dem in the White House (2.00 / 2)

The convention has not yet taken place, and we do NOT officially have a nominee.


by Xov Wonk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:50:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We WILL put a Dem in the White House (2.00 / 5)

Yeah, it's realistic that nominating someone in late August with no existing ground operation in a single state, no fundraising apparatus, no ads, and no campaign staff is the key to victory.  Oh, and re-opening every single division that people have been trying to heal over the past month.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

I can't tell whether you people are hopelessly naive or your self-destructive anger makes you incapable of giving a shit.  I think the latter, but I'd think better of you if it was the former.


by rfahey22 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:58:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, OT, but (2.00 / 3)

is there any way I could get you to rec this diary for me? I know it's weird to plug someone else's work, but it was helpful to me -- I'd really like people to see it. I'm afraid it will be hard to get it on the rec list this late at night.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:39:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, OT, but (2.00 / 3)

Done.


by rfahey22 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, OT, but (none / 0)

done also....


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, KnowVox, (2.00 / 8)

but we couldn't win that way. If the supers gave her the nomination, there would be an uproar. There'd be no time to pull the party together. Hillary would lose. The only thing worse than losing the primary is losing the general election. I don't want that to happen to the country, and I don't want it to happen to her.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:05:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm sorry, KnowVox, (none / 0)

the party would go down in flames if that happened.  The party would not be split, it would be dead.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:13:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely no respect for PUMA (2.00 / 4)

Because they have no respect for the presumptive nominee. I've been to those sites. The names that Barack and Michelle are called is beyond the pale. THe Obamas do not deserve and have not earned the vitrol spewed at sites such as No nickles, Confluence, Bitter politicz, etc., etc.

IMO most of the posters are Repubs egging on the worst in people.  They are sinking dollars into this tactic.  But it will fail, because Repub is a broken brand.  

A 20 mil payoff for the hostages in Columbia.  
Who paid it?  


by Mae Scott on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely no respect for BOTS (2.00 / 2)

Obviously you've never visited any of those sites to make such a wild, baseless accusation.

And if you're pissed off about "vitrol spewed" against progressive Democrats, where were you on this site when the same was spewed at Hillary?

<crickets>


by Xov Wonk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:35:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely no respect for BOTS (none / 0)

I've visited these sites and found lots of vile comments aimed at Obama, Michelle, Donna Brazille, and others. I will not promote their filth by posting it here. If anyone has any doubts just spend 10 minutes on any of those sites.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (2.00 / 2)

Obama will NOT work for universal health care, and look at how far to the right he's going. He may not even support a woman's right to choose, from what I have seen. When he talked about including the minister in the decision, and all those other people, he showed he really doesn't support choice. It's all about religion.

Sorry, that's how I see it.


by splashy on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (2.00 / 1)

I couldn't disagree with your McCain talking points more. Our Candidate will clean up the Bush mess and create a much better America with our help.


by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:39:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (2.00 / 1)

You are so wrong about abortion. Obama said what Bill and Hillary Clinton both said - that is a complex moral decision that women often want to talk it over with people they trust.  Recognizing the reality that it is often a hard choice for women rings true to most Americans and garners respect from across the political spectrum.

And you're wrong on health care, too. His goal is universality.  

Besides, doesn't it come down to this: Which comes closer to your position on abortion and health care -- Obama or McCain?  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:43:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, no respect for PUMA. (2.00 / 2)

"They're working against what should be our common goal: Putting Barack Obama -- or, to be more generic, a Democrat "

Wrong. PUMA wants to put a REAL Democrat in the White House - Hillary Clinton. Not a DINO.

It's not over yet, until every last vote is counted.


by 07rescue on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:36:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, no respect for PUMA. (2.00 / 2)

"PUMA wants to put a REAL Democrat in the White House"

That's why its founder only ever donated to McCain, I guess.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:51:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Google is your friend (2.00 / 1)

Not true

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neigh bors.php?type=name&lname=Murphy& fname=Darragh&search=Search


by Xov Wonk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:51:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lord, please help these poor souls (none / 0)

to realize the primary is over and if they can't get on board, then get back to Free Republic, No pennies, Conflagration, etc.   Amen.


by Mae Scott on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, no respect for PUMA. (none / 0)

Wrong. PUMA wants to put a REAL Democrat in the White House - Hillary Clinton. Not a DINO.

Then you're too late.  You tried to do that, and were not successful - because by the affirmation of all, including Hillary Clinton (in whose name you are supposedly working), Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President.  The only two people with any chance at all of becoming President next January are Barack Obama and John McCain; the sooner you accept that reality, the better.

It's not over yet, until every last vote is counted.

About that you're right.  We have a long season ahead, where we're going to have to work really hard to ensure that the Democratic nominee becomes President.  The stakes are quite simply too high for you not to accept reality and start working for the presumptive Democratic nominee.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:11:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama no longer stands for yuur enumerated (2.00 / 2)

issues: i.e. women's issues: he pays his female staff an average of $10,000 less, does not want abortions for women who suffer mental distress, he's against universal or mandated health care for adults which women use the most, etc., etc., etc....


by suzieg on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fail troll (1.40 / 5)

please list all his campaign workers and their jobs.

also, Mental distress and mental disorder or disease are different things.  By mental distress it means that a month before birth you decide you just don't want the baby, which is not a reason for abortion.  I know you are just a troll, but telling small parts of something just makes you look like the troll you are.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:16:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama no longer stands for yuur enumerated (2.00 / 3)

The difference in salaries report, as I understand it, comes from a PUMA site, not a credible news organization. Am I right? I could not find it reported in ANY credible news organization.

And, if it were true, that would be absolutely meaningless without further information.

Once again, it appears people don't understand the concept of "average." If there was one lower paid woman who is, say a receptionist, among a larger group of professional staff, that would bring down the average for women as a whole, but it would say NOTHING about commitment to equal pay.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:47:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama no longer stands for yuur enumerated (2.00 / 1)

Yep.  Take a room of men and women with equal salaries; if Bill Gates walks into the room, the average income of the males becomes a hell of a lot higher.  That's why average is not a good measure of these things.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:13:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You cite broad averages that do not (2.00 / 1)

represent pay for duties, responsibilities, etc.
Since Sen. Obama is a relatively new senator, his staff should be paid less, due to seniority.
Cite more than sweeping generalizations.
by Mae Scott on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

great diary! (2.00 / 4)

i agree - many here want to refight the primaries.  but its not only PUMA, its people constantly bashing HRC, other democrats and mydd.  

awesome non-primary diaries go by with 1 or 2 comments on them.  it would seem that some are addicted to the flaming.  

highly rec'd.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:28:22 AM EST

Re: great diary! (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, because There have been diarys bashing HRC on the REC list in the last month, oh wait, no there hasn't.  There are at least 4 bashing Obama every day.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:18:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: great diary! (2.00 / 1)

I rarely agree with you , and I won't completely agree with this comment.

While there are diaries on the rec list that are critical of some of Obama's recent 'swerves' towards the center, those are not exactly 'bashing' diaries.   Also, deep within the commentary of those diaries are coments from  folks who still detest the Clintons and must denigrate them at every opportunity.

Neither side has a solid "I'm the most aggreived" stance.   You'd do well yourself to stop bashing Hillary and start talking up Obama if you really feel as you seem to in all your commentary, which I must state is usually acerbic towards anyone who was not for Obama 'from day one'.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:53:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 1)

That's an interesting take on it.  I guess I "respect" them in the same way that I respect Mussolini's ability to make the trains run on time.  Your larger point is well taken.


by rfahey22 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:47:29 AM EST

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 2)

I have seen little sign that most of the people on this site really have any goal, other than to re-fight the primary battle or to pour salt on old wounds.

The goal is to ensure we, as progressive Democrats, have the best nominee at the convention, pure and simple.


by Xov Wonk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:48:25 AM EST

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 1)

I agree. What we don't agree on is who is the best candidate we can put forward. I believe that is Barack Obama at the head of the ticket with one of three people - Wes Clark, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton - for his running mate.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 1)

The goal is to ensure we, as progressive Democrats, have the best nominee at the convention, pure and simple.

So when Barack Obama is nominated and becomes the official (rather than presumptive, as affirmed by all, including Hillary Clinton in whose name you supposedly are doing this) nominee, you're going to join Democrats in working to get him elected?

That's good to hear.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 1)

It's over.  Please, I was once one of the 'Only Hillary' folks as well, but that was before the last vote was cast (and it HAS been) and the end result was absolutely certain.

Let's get back to work on getting the Democrat into the WHite House, and defeating McCain.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (1.75 / 4)

Not only do I respect PUMA, I am proud to call myself a member. Yes, I have a goal and I'm on my way to accomplishing it.


by tigershark on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:53:19 AM EST

honest question... (2.00 / 1)

what is your goal?  and why?

im not being snarky - i want to understand your position (btw - i am/was a HRC supporter)


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:58:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (2.00 / 1)

I'm not trying to speak for tigershark. S/he can answer for themselves. However, I think I have a pretty clear idea of their goal. I believe it is to overturn the primary process and get the nomination for Hillary. However, some of them seem to have already given up on that goal and are working to get John McCain elected. It looks like there are conflicting goals with them also. Still, they do have goals.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:02:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i don't know. (2.00 / 2)

i saw some lady on CNN - and what she said was that they want to make a political statement that sexism will not be tolerated.  while i agree with this goal, its rather a convoluted way to make a point.  this is why i want to understand tiger's position.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:07:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i don't know. (none / 0)

To be honest, I agree with that goal... it is lofty to be certain but also a valid one....

And I would agree that it is PUMAs goal except that there is a regular amount of sexism directed at Michelle Obama on some of their sites and it goes unchallenged.

Is it only sexism if it is directed at Hillary?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i can't say.... (none / 0)

because i dont go to those sites.  

but if as you allege - they direct it at michelle - they are severely hypocritical and well - gross.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

to clarify. (2.00 / 3)

i agree with the goal that sexism will not be tolerated.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (2.00 / 1)

There is no conflict of goals with PUMAs supporting John McCain.

The only grounds on which the super delegates are empowered to vote for a nominee is to vote for the person who is most electable. If BO is collapsing in the polls because more and more people are either not going to vote, or will vote for John McCain, the SDs will have good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton as a substitute. So supporting John McCain is conditional, and is contingent on Hillary Clinton not being the nominee. As soon as Hillary Clinton is nominated, our votes, donations, and volunteerism returns to support her.

Supporting McCain as our second choice, to roll back support for BO, is a tactic, not a goal. The goal is the same - elect Hillary Clinton as our President.


by 07rescue on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:45:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (2.00 / 1)

There is no conflict of goals with PUMAs supporting John McCain

But wait a minute, in a comment above, you stated:

Wrong. PUMA wants to put a REAL Democrat in the White House -

Surely you don't consider McCain anything close to a REAL Democrat, do you?


by skohayes on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:59:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (1.20 / 5)

Hillary is a real Democrat, what don't you understand?

Driving Obama's  poll numbers down is what we want, to make the argument that he is unelectable to the super Delegates. Supporting McCain is the best way to do that. What don't you understand? Simply different tactics used by different contingents of the Hillary supporters. We are working on all levels to get the job done, and doing whatever it takes.

Of course it really helps fuel our commitment to our cause that the Obama camp is now waging war against the Clinton supporters. The electeds that supported Hillary are now facing primary challenges and have to fight to retain their seats. The Obama supporters are trying to destroy them. It is a daily reminder that we are not on the same side, that we are in fact enemies, and no holds barred combat will continue. The primary continues for most of us, this is not a rerun, it's a new chapter.

We are not the only ones saying "Party Unity, My Ass", the Obama supporters are saying the same exact thing in actions, if not so obviously in words. Trying to kill off half of the party will only ensure your own demise at the polls.

The numbers are going down for Obama, the faker is getting undone. If we fight for the real Democrat in this race we will win in November.

The most common thing said about Hillary Clinton here in NY state is "She does what she says she will do." That is a fact. She keeps her campaign promises. She wants to be held accountable, and she ran to the center left during the primary so that she would not have to flip flop to the center in the general. She knows that if you spell out what you are going to do, and people support you for it, then once you get in office you have a mandate to get those things done. What you see is what you get with Hillary Clinton.

BO has deliberately obscured what his positions are, no one knows for sure, and people are scared, with that uneasy feeling of "I hope he will do what I think he should, but it may only be my wishful thinking." People do not trust him. If he were to squeak through and win the election, he would no have a mandate to push for anything at all, because he hasn't stood for anything at all.

All that grandiose talk about a Democratic landslide is dissolving in the cold crisp clarity of reality, and his flimsy boat is sinking, built on a tissue of lies.

It's the morning after, and the booze and drugs have worn off, and the person you got in bed with looks more and more like a crummy creep you cannot wait to get away from. What were you thinking?


by 07rescue on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:13:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (2.00 / 2)

"Driving Obama's poll numbers down is what we want, to make the argument that he is unelectable to the super Delegates."

If your only reason to support McCain is to change the minds of the superdelegates, that reason becomes irrelevant after the superdelegates have voted.

That makes it all the more easy for the superdelegates to ignore you.

"She does what she says she will do."

Bwahahahahaha. Oh, my. People still believing in the fundamental sincerity of the Clintons. How quaint.

And as for Obama's numbers -- they're going up everywhere. http://www.electoral-vote.com/ and http://hominidviews.com/ have him up with 320 electoral votes. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ has him up with 310 electoral votes.

Good luck convincing anyone he's "unelectable".


by Aris Katsaris2 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:01:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (none / 0)

Of course it really helps fuel our commitment to our cause that the Obama camp is now waging war against the Clinton supporters. The electeds that supported Hillary are now facing primary challenges and have to fight to retain their seats. The Obama supporters are trying to destroy them.

Present a link to a credible, reliable source linking the Obama campaign to "waging war against the Clinton supporters" or retract the claim.  Let's see it.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:17:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Supporting McCain - (2.00 / 2)

That is not what I see any discussion of on the part of PUMAs - no talk about how to actively support McCain.  No doubt some are, I don't visit any sites dedicated to supporting McCain so I don't know.  I don't believe the time has come to make any decision about how to vote in November - there's still plenty of time until Denver.

Some goals:

1) Restore democracy to the primary process; the RBC took the step of cutting deals in secret rather than in public during the meeting about a month ago, and took the unacceptable and undemocratic step of reassigning the delegates from Michigan and giving votes to a candidate whose name wasn't on the ballot, including four delegates belonging to the other candidate.  

2) Complete representation of Florida and Michigan at the convention, given that other states also moved up their primaries and were not punished according to "The Rules."  The DNC stacked the deck IMHO.

3) Ensure that Hillary's name is included on the first ballot in Denver.

4) Sexism is wrong.  Sexism in the media and from fellow Democrats is unacceptable and should not be tolerated in the future.  There was plenty of sexism in this primary and we are profoundly dismayed to see how so many of our fellow Democrats and progressives did nothing against it, and even encouraged it, when it benefited their candidate.  We should all speak up against it on principle, just as much as we would against other prejudices.


by daria g on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supporting McCain - (2.00 / 2)

) Restore democracy to the primary process; the RBC took the step of cutting deals in secret rather than in public during the meeting about a month ago, and took the unacceptable and undemocratic step of reassigning the delegates from Michigan and giving votes to a candidate whose name wasn't on the ballot, including four delegates belonging to the other candidate.  

That's silly- they could have given all the delegates to Hillary that she won in Michigan  and she still wouldn't have had enough delegates to win the nomination.

Complete representation of Florida and Michigan at the convention, given that other states also moved up their primaries and were not punished according to "The Rules."  The DNC stacked the deck IMHO.

So you want to follow the rules and punish New Hampshire (the only state in violation and won by Hillary) and then ignore the rules and have Florida and Michigan given full representation at the convention?
Really?

Ensure that Hillary's name is included on the first ballot in Denver.

I have no problem with that.

Sexism is wrong.  Sexism in the media and from fellow Democrats is unacceptable and should not be tolerated in the future.  There was plenty of sexism in this primary and we are profoundly dismayed to see how so many of our fellow Democrats and progressives did nothing against it, and even encouraged it, when it benefited their candidate.  We should all speak up against it on principle, just as much as we would against other prejudices.

I completely agree. Reality, OTOH, has a way of raising it's ugly head when it wants to- for example, at PUMA sites like N. Quarter, the misogyny directed at Michelle Obama is really something to behold, and I don't see any "democrats" over there defending her against that.


by skohayes on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Supporting McCain - (2.00 / 2)

Sigh... would hat I had more mojo to bestow upon you....especially for the last comment... it sticks in my craw that people decry sexism and then use blatantly, over-the-top sexist language when talking about Michelle Obama or Donna Brazille.  Disagree with them, fine, but to become what you have beheld in the process...?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (2.00 / 2)

"Supporting McCain as our second choice, to roll back support for BO, is a tactic, not a goal. "

So basically you're saying that while we thought most PUMAs were in the Anger stage of grief, you're in the Denial stage of grief instead.

Since I doubt many of the PUMAs will still believe in November that she has a chance at the presidency, that makes you people all the more ignoreable where your votes are concerned.

If you were voting for McCain because you honestly thought he was the better candidate, that'd be an altogether different matter: as it stands, you're merely attempting a sabotage with a bluff.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:52:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (2.00 / 2)

Why?
First off, it has nothing to with sexism, I'm not a woman. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin either.

Anyway, mainly its because of his idealism, new poltics and so called change rhetoric. There is nothing new about him other than his age or perhaps his speaking style. He is also very inexperienced both politically and also has little to no foriegn policy experience. There are other issues as well but these are main ones. I am a Democrat, but I just don't have it in me to vote for this guy, after 8 years of Bush, I think this country deserves a fighter for the people.


by tigershark on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: honest question... (2.00 / 2)

And that person who is going to fight for the people is John McCain? Really? Wow! I had no idea.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

fair enough. (2.00 / 2)

but do you consider yourself a partisan democrat?  if so - how do you reconcile that fact that you won't be voting this way?


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:11:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OT, but if you haven't (2.00 / 1)

already read this diary, you might want to check it out. I don't know if you'll rec it (I did, for the part about FISA), but it's interesting. I think it actually helped me with my FISA dilemma. Nothing complicated, just something simple and obvious, which I hadn't considered because I was too angry. I think I agree with the diarist -- I think I see why Obama is supporting the bill. And it just might be the right thing to do.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:18:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fair enough. (2.00 / 2)

I consider myself a liberal. I strongly support almost every Democrat running for office, but I just feel a huge disconnect with Obama. I'm really apathetic about the race as a whole. The ads for John McCain are just as bad, they are almost a mix between the History Channel and the Discovery Channel.  


by tigershark on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah... (2.00 / 1)

mccain's commercial are pretty bad.  in fact his marketing is beyond pathetic.

but when you say you're PUMA - does that mean that you are voting for mccain?  or not voting for obama?


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:27:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fair enough. (2.00 / 2)

It's really very odd coming across you, tigershark.

As a liberal, and someone very well versed on Barack's life, legislative record, accomplishments, having read both of his books, and ofcourse campaign endlessly for him, I always saw Barack as a truly remarkable candidate.

What concerns you about him?  Where does this 'disconnect' as you put it arise from?

So you know, while I like Hillary personally, having lost two friends in Iraq, I simply could not bare to vote for her.  I, and the base of the Party, needed to throw her and other Democrats who voted for the War under the bus.


by ChangeMatters on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:17:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fair enough. (1.50 / 4)

He is not Hillary, that is enough reason for the dead enders, it really is that simple.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fair enough. (2.00 / 1)

That isn't helpful, Brandon.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fair enough. (2.00 / 3)

I read some of "The Audacity of Hope" and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out where he stood on anything, because discussion of one POV would be immediately followed by 'on the other hand' and then discussion of the opposite POV.  And then talk about how we need to move beyond these things.  

As far as I understand this kind of hope, change, unity, new politics, whatever - I don't want it.  The Republicans are wrong, have been proven wrong, and I don't want to unite with them and all get along.  We can't and we won't, nor should we.

I guess this kind of candidacy for a Democratic presidential candidate is remarkable indeed, because this is a year where the tide is so much in our favor, we can win with a candidate who actually stands up and fights for liberal and progressive values.  Instead we're trying to nominate a guy who is so keen on seeing the Republican POV it seems to me that he's meeting them halfway already (FISA, Iraq, abortion rights, gun control, health care, taxes, trade agreements..).


by daria g on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fair enough. (2.00 / 1)

We can't and we won't, nor should we.
Oh, God forbid we get along with fellow Americans. Let's just throw all of them in prison or ask them to secede from the Union.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 1)

That's all well and good, but the majority of us have bigger goals than getting a John McCain beer cozy.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:55:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Count me in too..... (none / 0)


by suzieg on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:37:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My goal? Universal health care (1.33 / 3)

Not gonna happen with Obama, so not voting for him.

Not gonna happen with McCain, so not voting for him.

McKinney actually wants it, so may vote for her.

Would definitely have voted for Clinton, and did, because she actually was for universal health care. If she is on the ticket with Obama, MIGHT vote for him.

Wanted to vote for Kuchinich, but he wasn't viable by the time I voted. Too bad.


by splashy on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:07:54 AM EST

Re: My goal? Universal health care (2.00 / 2)

What about ending the War?

Or eradicating poverty here and abroad?

Are we ever going to vote for a true liberal in our lifetimes?


by ChangeMatters on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:18:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not going to happen with Obama - he's too (1.66 / 3)

careful of a politician and will not want a possible fiasco on his hand if he brings the troops home too early for his run in 2012! The day he's elected is his first day towards his re-election campaign, so no bold initiatives will be accomplished during his first 4 years. He's a coward - he's proven that in the Illinois legislature and in the US Senate!


by suzieg on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My goal? Universal health care (2.00 / 1)

I love the predictions- it's "not gonna happen" with Obama, but McKinney "wants it" (psst- so does Obama), so you may vote for her.
She doesn't even have a plan for UHC, she just says she's cosponsored every UHC bill that was introduced.
As a member of the Green Party, how many bills has McKinney been able to pass through the House that support the Green agenda?
by skohayes on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:19:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My goal? Universal health care (1.00 / 3)

all that was code for "I vote by genitalia"


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My goal? Universal health care (none / 0)

Well, at least you aren't voting for McCain.
You have that goin' for ya.
by Kysen on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True Hate Groups are Single Minded (2.00 / 1)

lets not copy this one.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:21:59 AM EST

Lovely, dissent = hate - grow up! (2.00 / 3)


by suzieg on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:41:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lovely, dissent = hate - grow up! (2.00 / 2)

No, PUMA = hate.

Check out some of their favorite sites.  No Quarter is a hotbed of hatred against Obama and anyone who supports Obama; just the other day, I ran across a thread digging up real-life information on a prominent online Obama supporter where people were threatening to challenge his/her immigration status.  This is hate, pure and simple - and the PUMAs' embrace and failure to completely reject that site means that they are comfortable with that site's hateful and racist contents.

Have you read what people say about Obama - even within this thread - even yourself?  There is hate there, honest-to-goodness hate.  And the thing that really gets my goat about it is that you all have the gall to call out hate on the Obama supporters' side, while continually engaging in some of the worst and most prejudicial hate of Obama I've seen.  You have the gall to act as if you have been somehow persecuted.  This is utterly ridiculous.

PUMA is a hate movement, plain and simple.  They have transitioned from people who supported Hillary Clinton to people who hate Barack Obama and will do anything and everything to ensure his downfall.  Since Barack Obama will be, by the affirmation of all, the Democratic nominee, as a group that opposes him you are the opponents of the Democratic Party.

And that's fine.  But don't call yourselves Democrats.  Don't call yourselves progressives.  Don't call yourselves loyal, or liberal.  Be honest about what you are - former Democrats, who are by supporting John McCain taking an active and positive stand against women's rights, against ending the war, and against working people.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:26:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 3)

Can someone explain to me why years in Washington is always seen as the right experience to be Presiden?

From my vantage point, the 'experienced and qualified' crew got us into the mess we are in, so why continue to reward them?

No one ever seems to be able to answer this for me except to say "that's just politics.  They always disappoint you."


by ChangeMatters on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:23:47 AM EST

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 2)

I agree "Changematters" I have had enough of this "experience"  Change is comming and that matters, Cheers


by Politicalslave on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 05:31:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's their experience on the way things get done! (2.00 / 2)

Obama himself told how he got bored with the proceedings. Someone as skillful as Johnson knew just how to get unpopular legislation passed - not knowing puts an added barrier in legislating your policies! It's easier if you know the system inside out and who the strong players and their tactics are!


by suzieg on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:46:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (1.50 / 4)

Being married to a president is not presidential experience.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:25:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (none / 0)

You're not helping.  Please think before you post.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 4)

PUMA is going to show Sexism is not going to be tolerated by voting for John McCain? That's like showing you won't tolerate racism by voting for Jesse Helms. What a pathetic cover for a McCain operation.


by hankg on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:13:42 AM EST

Is this like you voting for a candidate who ran (2.00 / 2)

on a leftist platform and now will vote for him after he's backtracked on almost everything he was for? So it's acceptable for you to endorse a man who passed himself as someone he wasn't and demeaned and criticized his opponent for the positions he know espouses?


by suzieg on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:50:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this like you voting for a candidate who ra (2.00 / 4)

He hasn't backtracked on "almost everything he was for" -- that's Republican spin.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this like you voting for a candidate who ra (2.00 / 1)

Even with Obama's 'move to the center' there isn't a dinmes worth of difference between his and Hillary's positions. Hell, Hillary voted for war with Iran BEFORE she moved to the center.

I don't here any Kucinich votersw voting for McCain and he was calling for real universal healthcare not the private comapny dependent plans of Hillary/Obama.

This has nothing to do with policy or Hillary. Hillary is with Obama. PUMA does not speak for her.


by hankg on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (none / 0)

My goal? to have a competent leader in the white house, which neither Obama nor McCain satisfies.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:47:39 AM EST

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (none / 0)

And yet when people say that Clinton is not competent, they're accused of sexism.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 2)

and if you say Obama is not qualified, you are accused of racism. it goes both ways..........


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (none / 0)

That kind of sucks for you, because those are the only two people who stand any chance of being President come January.

Which do you choose?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:28:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (2.00 / 1)

Sorry MSO1 indie....I can't rec this diary...there is just wayyy too much PUMAz flavored lunacy in the comments.

They really are John McCain's favorite supporters....Hillary must be outright disgusted by them. I bet she throws up a little each time she thinks about McCain getting votes in 'support' of her.


by Kysen on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST

they are working together to accomplish something. (2.00 / 1)

The defeat of the Democratic nominee.


by Beren on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:53:16 PM EST

Re: they are working together (none / 0)

the motivation behind them is more complicated than that. It involves a lot of different issues.  The wish of most to not have Obama as the nominee is more a symbol of what they want than not.  


by Scotch on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The wish of most to not have Obama (none / 0)

is really a wish that'll lose so Hillary can get her redo in 2012.


by Beren on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The wish of most to not have Obama (none / 0)

Not really.  Though I tend to lean in the PUMA direction, you can never base anything on hopes for 4 years from now.  4 years is a lifetime in politics and nothing can be counted on.  So for myself that isn't even a consideration.  Many are just fed up with the non democratic process within the Dem party.  We haven't had a chance to really see the process through to the end in other elections because there was always a favorite picked after the first 6 states.  To see it play out was really an eye opener, and an unpleasant experience to many.


by Scotch on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The wish of most to not have Obama (none / 0)

"you can never base anything on hopes for 4 years from now"

I remember many Dean supporters in 2004 hoping for his 2008 comeback even as Kerry was running. Never underestimate the power of delusion.

"Many are just fed up with the non democratic process within the Dem party."

I've been advocating reform of the unfair, undemocratic, and manipulative process whereby the Democratic Party chooses it's nominee for years. I don't know where all these people have been until Hillary didn't win -- which leads me to think their problem is with the result and that they won't lobbying for reform, but simply for rules which they think will help Hillary win next time (after they've helped Obama lose, that is).


by Beren on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The wish of most to not have Obama (none / 0)

It is that the process has not been on display like it was this year.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Being into politics for years, I have to confess that I didn't know how significantly the process varied from state to state, that it was actually possible because of the varied processes, for republicans to elect our nominee, and I didn't know how many states had caucuses.  I am still learning even at my age, and so I can't blame people even less involved than I am before this year, for not knowing all of this.


by Scotch on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The wish of most to not have Obama (none / 0)

I advocate a national Democratic primary day with Instant Runoff Voting and the nominee chosen by popular vote. It's simple honest and fair with every vote carrying equal weight.

But what most seem to want is just a differently skewed version of the same system in place now.


by Beren on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The wish of most to not have Obama (none / 0)

I disagree with a national primary day. This favors name-recognition candidates with the most money. That is precisely why the process is drawn out like it is, to allow lesser known cadidates a chance to gain traction.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The wish of most to not have Obama (none / 0)

"I disagree with a national primary day."

In other words, you just want different version of the same system. Most who now say they want reform really just want a system that will somehow help Hillary if she runs again.

"This favors name-recognition candidates with the most money"

Actually, slogging from primary battle to primary battle over 6 months requires much more money.

"That is precisely why the process is drawn out like it is, to allow lesser known cadidates a chance to gain traction."

It's hard not to laugh outright at the naive notion that the current system was put in place in order to help unknown candidates. It was put in place by party insiders so that they and not the people would choose the nominee.

This year was a rare anomoly in that a newcomer was able to raise enough money and hire smart enough advisors to beat the process which was designed to deliver the nomination to an institutional insider like Clinton.

As for a national primary day, every candidate's name would be on the ballot and they would have an equal opportunity to raise money, travel the country, and participate in televised debates.

And every vote would carry equal weight rather than the ones in early contests carrying more.

It would also do away with the caucuses which drive down turnout and which  Obama was able to exploit to Clinton's disadvantage.

And with Instant Runoff Voting it would allow people to vote for their favorite candidate without feeling they might be "throwing their vote away."

And finally, it would be democratic, which the current system isn't. And a party which calls itself "Democratic," should be democratic.


by Beren on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The wish of most to not have Obama (none / 0)

Wow, where to start...

Glad you think a 61 year-old man who has been involved in politics for 44 years is "naive".

In other words, you just want different version of the same system.
No, I'd like to see caucuses fazed out in favor of primaries. I'd also like to see a rotating pool of early primary states to give all states a chance to come early in the process. Once all of the states switch from caucuses to primaries I'd like to see super delegates done away with.

Actually, slogging from primary battle to primary battle over 6 months requires much more money.
More money over a longer period of time. A little known candidate has a better chance of connecting with voters in a handful of states than they do with the whole country if all primaries are held on the same day. Fund raising for candidates, at least the lesser known ones, doesn't really take off until they prove they are viable by doing well in one or more early primaries.

This year was a rare anomoly in that a newcomer was able to raise enough money and hire smart enough advisors to beat the process which was designed to deliver the nomination to an institutional insider like Clinton.
So you admit that the system isn't broken completely?

As for a national primary day, every candidate's name would be on the ballot and they would have an equal opportunity to raise money, travel the country, and participate in televised debates.
And you have the nerve to call me naive?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you think the current system was put in place.. (none / 0)

to help the likes of Kucinich and Gravel......

You are naive.

You just want the same system we have now, and admitted earlier that you never even considered the subject until your candidate didn't win.

So I see no need for further discussion with someone like you who hasn't even thought it out and can provide no alternatives.


by Beren on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you think the current system was put in pla (none / 0)

You just want the same system we have now
Did you even read my reply? Apparently not. I listed several things I want changed. The main disagreement between us is a national primary day.

...and admitted earlier that you never even considered the subject until your candidate didn't win.
Did I? I don't remember that. Just who do you think my candidate was? You seem to think I'm a Hillary supporter.

So I see no need for further discussion with someone like you who hasn't even thought it out and can provide no alternatives.
I provided alternatives. You just don't like them.

My alternatives. The ones I stated above that you didn't seem to see.

No, I'd like to see caucuses fazed out in favor of primaries. I'd also like to see a rotating pool of early primary states to give all states a chance to come early in the process. Once all of the states switch from caucuses to primaries I'd like to see super delegates done away with.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thoughtful diary....last line very provocative (none / 0)

I think political parties are rapidly becoming less relevant; my hope is that bi-partisan coalitions will at some point start to take their place. My parents--in their seventies--call me regularly to tell me that I that I just CAN'T vote Republican this year! (They would be voting Democratic if Mike Gravel had somehow become the nominee.) I'm not sure that like them, or the writer, I want to put a Democrat in the White House...OR the Republican, for that matter. And yes, I know those are the only two choices.

Like many, I'm frustrated by the choices this year, and sick of elections where I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Think about it: in the worst financial meltdown in many of our lifetimes, we have two nominees, neither of whom offers significant expertise or knowledge of economics. The pat response of, "oh, they can surround themselves with good people" doesn't cut it anymore, in a world this competitive and complex. Ronald Reagan tried the CEO model of "picking good people, and then getting out the way". While he got out of the way and slept, the defecit ran out of control, Iran-Contra happened, and we know the rest of that Reagan movie.

For all the talk about this being a ground-breaking election, we have two candidates who are giving us the same tired old approaches:

Plan R) more tax cuts, and somehow we'll grow our way out of the defecits and economic mess we're in. At least this candidate realizes that the only way this stands a remote chance of working is if we aggressively embrace free trade, and continue to expand our exports. Otherwise, the word depression will go from being a much-used hyperbole to a very real possibility.

Plan D) redistribute the tax burden, to achieve a more equitable and fair tax structure. In the meantime, embark on National Health Care, and a host of other worthy programs.  In this scenario,the left leaning Tax Policy Center suggests that the deficit will explode, exacerbating an already fierce hyper-inflation here and worldwide.

In the interest of making their respective plans even semi-achievable, neither candidate is willing to talk about anything involving pain, or sacrifice, which will be massive. And that's why I say, this to me is just another election, not a ground-breaking one...and there is nothing remotely profound going on.

Just consider this example: now that eveyone has suddenly discovered we have an energy problem, we can see this phenomenon play out before our eyes. The other day, I said to a friend, "you know, one word I haven't heard during this whole mess is 55". But that would involve asking people to change....most would be moaning about the terrible inconvenience of driving slower, just as they complain about having to take their shoes off for Airport Security.

So I was heartened last night when the news ticker reported a blurb about Sen. John Warner asking the Energy Administration to prepare a cost/benefit analyis of taking the national speed limit down to 55 (someone will have to go wake up Sam Bodman, I guess). Over the years, Warner has been one of my heroes--he single handedly kept Ollie North out of the United States Senate; voted against Robert Bork even though the guy was pretty much beaten by the time the roll call got to the name "Warner", and forever alienated himself from the GOP hierarchy. More recently, he worked like a trojan to make Cap-and-Trade legislation a reality, in the Warner-Lieberman bill. However, just about any time I tell one of my liberal or centrist friends that this great gentleman is one of my political heroes, the answer I get is "Ick! How could you ever vote for a Republican?"

So to your point, I think the two-party system as we know it is in the eighth or ninth inning. Had he run this year, I think Michael Bloomberg would be walking away with this race, given the rapidly worsening economic picture, and more importantly, given his ability to look beyond party labels (I guess he's worn all of them!) I feel fairly certain that a viable independent candidacy will happen in 2012. The bitter memory of Bush will still be like an open sore. And voters--who have a pretty short attention span--will feel like Ried and Pelosi haven't done much better...I expect the mood will be "a curse on both their houses!" Look for Bloomberg in 2012, and things just might start to turn around. But it won't be easy.


by BJJ Fighter on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST

Re: Newfound Respect for PUMA (none / 0)

There is a slim possibility that an independent could win the white house. Then what? There would still be only two parties in control of congress. Any change to a different system would require a massive restructuring of the