You are currently browsing the daily archive for July 4, 2008.

An article about B0 campaign volunteers in PA contained this revealing tidbit at the very end:

“We give them two forms – one to change their registration now for the primary and one so they can switch back later,”

We already knew about the “Democrats for a day” Obama ads in open elections in red states, but this took it one step further. If you want to win the general election, why give them the second form?

Aren’t you sending the clear message that “we are only here to kick Hillary out of the race for you?”

I have wondered before about the stalking horse for the GOP theory.

Especially when SDs declared that losing was OK

the idea that Obama isn’t going to be able to win
the nomination came up while talking to the DNC/supers and the response
she received was that Obama brought in a lot of new Democratic voters
(and ultimately, a lot of new Democratic money) and thus, while the
party might lose the election in the short term (the presidential
election, that is), the long term would be good, as the party would
have lots of new voters and money

Today it pops into my head again when I read that BO campaigns in Montana, a red state with 3 electoral votes while jettisoning the ace in the hole that was to be Roe vs Wade

He is pooping on his entire base and courting the Christian right? Are they going to replace…all women and most Democrats? Really???

updating to add masslib’s correspondence with DonnaMember Avatar

According to this comment at the Confluence

fif, on July 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm Said:

I was just listening to Darragh Murphy on PUMA radio too, and heard something new that maybe has been discussed on the blog today: Donna Brazille has been sending out thousands of emails telling Dems that PUMAS are Republican plants and not to support us?!!!!

and I found the letter
There’s a lot of speculation, but no quotes.
And then there’s the PUMAs, an acronym from the name of a PAC that formed after Clinton quit to supposedly stand up against the meanie sexist Democratic infrastructure. It didn’t take much work for me to discover who started this PAC:> With her name and her zip code, all it took was a quick jaunt to Open Secrets to find out her campaign donation history:
(links via amanda marcotte blog come all messed up – but she refers to Murphy’s donation to McCain

That’s the only donation listed. So, not much of a Clinton fan but appears to be big on McCain.
I want to draw your attention to the first one, which implies that the PAC was formed to support Clinton during the primary run. But if you look at the date on the PAC form, the PAC was registered on 6/3/08. Clinton officially dropped out on 6/7/08, but for days before, it was basically known she was out.
I would like to argue that this PAC was not formed to support Clinton, but to support the media narrative about hysterical feminists, and to help the McCain campaign with goals #1 and #2.
I bet similar digging would show that a lot of PUMAs aren’t exactly what they’re claiming to be.
Update: <; Looks like I’m not the first person to do a little simple fact-checking.

Here’s How PUMA got started, Donna

We are talking Karl Rove’s blueberry buddy Donna?

The one who said

”The Republicans are in charge,” she said. ”I don’t want African-Americans to wait four years or eight years for the Democrats to get back in the game before we make progress.’

That Donna?

Member Avatar
Member Avatar

When, in the course of U. S. Presidential Elections, it becomes necessary for one portion of a political party to assume among the people of the nation a position different from that which they have previously occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of their Constitution entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

In agreement with generations who have gone before us, we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes; and accordingly experience has shown that citizens are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the political structures to which they are accustomed. But political parties are not governments, and when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under authoritarianism, it is their duty to throw off such a political party, and to provide different representation for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of many in the Democratic Party, and it is this suffering which compels them to now demand the representation to which they are entitled. The recent history of both parties is a history of repeated injuries on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of authoritarian power over them, for the purpose of profit. This has rendered the Democratic Party unrecognizable to ordinary citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.


The members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and By-Laws Committee violated The DNC charter on May 31, 2008 by meeting in private, in direct violation of the Sunshine Rules Provision of said Charter.

On that same day, the Democratic Party grossly violated ethical standards when it awarded four delegates to candidate Barack Obama based on actual votes for candidate Hillary Clinton, and in addition, awarded him delegates based on votes for “Uncommitted.”

Earlier in the campaign season, the Democratic Party violated its own Delegate Selection Rules by applying penalties to only two states who broke Section 11 calendar rules, even though five states broke those rules. In addition, Florida and Michigan were originally stripped of 100% of their delegates, even though the rules stipulated a 50% penalty.

The decisions of the RBC meeting mentioned above are evidence of sexism and authoritarianism within the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Caucuses are a violation of the one-person, one-vote and secret ballot principles that have been cornerstone Democratic values for more than a century. They produced a skewed and unfair result this primary season. Caucus states are also over-represented in the pledged delegate count, in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle.

Sexism was allowed to flourish as never before not only because of the behavior of the mainstream media, but also by the actions of many in the progressive online community, the stark silence of the Democratic Leadership and because ordinary Americans, male and female, engaged in it as long as it advanced their favored candidate.

Barack Obama and his campaign exploited racial issues in the primary campaign, which risks setting back the Civil Rights movement, and cynical Democratic leaders, as well as some ordinary Democrats, approved of this campaign tactic.

The voices of 18 million voters who supporter Hillary Clinton have been illegitimately silenced, ridiculed, and subjected to outright fabrications on the part of the mainstream press and the Internet press.

The evidence is present, for anyone who wants to see it, that authoritarian tendencies fueled by greed are on the rise in the Democratic Party.

Now, in view of the dismissal of one-half the Democratic voters of this primary season, their social degradation, in view of the unjust actions mentioned above and the disenfranchisement of the voters in two states, and because we do feel ourselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of a free and fair primary election, we insist that the Democratic Party address our objections, or risk the loss of our votes come November.

In entering upon the work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we will use every instrumental within our power to affect our objectives. We will employ agents, circulate tracts and flyers, blog, advertise in all media, petition state and national Democratic leadership, and endeavor to enlist the press in our behalf.


Resolved, that the Democratic Party must seat the full Michigan and Florida delegation in adherence to the thoroughly Democratic principle of one-person, one-vote.

Resolved, that Michigan delegates must be awarded according to the actual votes cast, specifically that Hillary Clinton must be given 73 delegates and Barack Obama must be given 0 (zero).

Resolved, that Hillary Clinton’s name must be offered on the first roll call at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August of 2008, in accordance with tradition for 16 of the last 18 Democratic National Conventions.

Resolved, that caucuses should be abolished, and the Democratic Primary system in its entirety must be reformed to better reflect the one-person, one-vote principle, as well as the equal representation principle enshrined in the Constitution.

Resolved, that millions of women and men alike no longer think of the Democratic Party as the party for women’s issues, or for equality and fairness, or for the protection of abortion rights, and will no longer vote for them based on such criteria.

Resolved, that the cynical exploitation of cultural issues will not be rewarded with votes, and that it is part of the PUMA mission to educate the electorate about such abuses.

Resolved, that the PUMA movement is comprised of traditional and loyal Democrats who have carefully watched and recorded the events of the 2008 Primary campaign season.

Resolved, that 18 million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, more than any other presidential primary candidate in history, and they have a right to help shape the agenda and processes of the Democratic Party.

note: written by Annabelle for the use of our movement without attribution. She wants it posted anywhere and everywhere. On the doors of the DNC and the doors of Bambi HQ. ….. nh

Member Avatar

Apparently the little people donation thingy was not about democracy, but lack of time

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

from NYT buyer’s remorse “New and not Improved” editorial

Poor little Obots

To think the existence of little donors was the “moral base” of ditching campaign finance reform

Predictably, after all the cozying up to religious right, Roe is shoved under the bus as well

While I believe late term abortions have nothing to do with choice – they are always medically determined, B0 is starting to limit those conditions that justify it

In an interview this week with “Relevant,” a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain “a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.”
Obama then added: “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.”

the flop of this flip

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with the ruling because it “dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.”

NARAL (which ehdorsed B0) helds that

“A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family.”


The 1973 landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, established a right to an abortion, and a concurrent case, Doe v. Bolton, established that medical judgments about the need for an abortion could include physical, emotional and psychological health factors.

In other words: Backtrack Obama wants to change the law of the land, limit Roe as it now stands

Talk Left further offers us a source on B0’s “views” on the subject

But remember when Roe was the ace in the hole?

During those times he even sponsored the Freedom of Choice  Act :

The Freedom of Choice Act specifically allows abortions after viability where necessary to protect a woman’s health, and the legislation refers repeatedly to the guarantees of Roe and Doe, which protect the right to an abortion where necessary for a woman’s physical and mental health.

Was B0 aware he voted “yes” on this?


After HHS redefinition of abortion/life here’s Hillary’s response

Sign the Petition

Dear Secretary Leavitt,

I am appalled at the proposal now under consideration at HHS which will endanger family planning services and undermine the health of women across the country. I strongly urge you to refute this outrageous policy that threatens to affect Medicaid and Title X programs that are important to millions of families.

I stand with Hillary Clinton and women and men across America in speaking out against this proposal. We’ve had enough of putting ideology over science and failed policies harming healthy families.


B0 still not heard off…

Not Your Sweetie