Mark at Democrats In Exile (FKA Men For Hillary) has written a beautiful piece explaining why we are PUMAs. I agree with everything he says except for the fact that I would eliminate caucuses which exclude many people by their nature and use pressure and intimidation as part of their process. I prefer the secret ballot with elections held over the two day weekend so as to include the most people possible.

I would also include in my reasons for becoming a PUMA, my feelings that the corporate Democratic ran BO specifically to defeat Hillary Clinton because they are misogynist, knew they could use sexism to defeat her, could divide blacks and women to elect him and because they know they would be unable to control Hillary Clinton. This is the source of the whispering campaign that "you can't trust her". Pelosi likes power and knows she would have much more power with the inexperienced and opportunistic BO in the white house than with Hillary Clinton as president. BO is already showing that he will change his position to gain power not that he has a record except for the Global Poverty Act which will deliver one of every three foreign aid dollars to the fiscally corrupt UN. See the previous posts for a discussion of the UN Human Rights committee which just ruled that UN members cannot criticize Islamic practices such as female genital mutilation and child marriage. I do not want ANY foreign aid money going to the UN.

When I talk about corporate democrats I am talking about wall street which has by a substantial majority contributed to BO's campaign,Soros,and Zbigniew Brzezenski, etc. Sen Clinton was told the reason she lost DNC support is that Obama was bringing in so much fresh money into the DNC. And that says everything about who his administration will represent.

Here is Mark's post but go to his blog to see the beautiful pictures of his surfing vacation and the comments.

I'mmm Baaackk! And, Ready to Make Waves (Instead of Riding Them)

As you may know from reading my post of June 26, I have been slacking on the coast (the Washington State coast).

However, I actually did get Internet access one day after driving into the nearest larger town and I wrote this e-mail to Ms. Rebecca Traister, of Slate.com regarding her June 23, 2008 article -- Why Clinton voters say they won't support Obama -- The attack of the PUMAs, or a dozen reasons why Clinton voters are still too angry to come home.

Among other things, in the article, Ms. Traister stated the following:

"The truth is, they'll probably love voting for him [Obama]. But after what they feel has been done to them -- the way in which they were written off, marginalized and resented, their hopes mocked and their history-making ambitions dismissed as retrograde identity politicking -- damned if they're going to be nice girls about it."

Here's my e-mail response.

Dear Ms. Traister:
Subject: Your June 23 Article on "Angry" People

Really? Look, you missed the most important point of PUMAs or of anyone who has left the old Democrats behind: It's the process, stupid!

I object to the DNC's nominating PROCESS. They had the opportunity to show good faith and move towards a more democratic process, BUT they chose not to. They clearly showed that they wanted to maintain centralized power and NOT trust the voter. The primary principle of democracy is "one-person, one-vote." Sure, we live under a "republic" designed by some folks way back when who distrusted the common voter, but that was then, and this is now. You know, a more informed and educated "common" voter.

At any rate, whether we live under a republic or not, the DNC is, as a private institution, allowed to make its own rules and could have taken the high road, but chose to essentially deny voters their power. I call it voter abuse.

IF the DNC and if Obama and if Clinton were to propose huge nomination process reform, along the lines of a two day nationwide primary excluding registered Republicans with preliminary non-binding caucuses conducted earlier in the cycle, that would bring me back to the Democrats. Anything less, not likely.

Again, Ms. Traister -- it is the process that matters, it is about principles of democracy, NOT who lost or who won or who got dissed the most.

And, yes, many men support Senator Clinton, but, you know what, we support and will advocate for the principles of democracy, no matter what Clinton decides to do. After all, she is a politician, and has to make her choices. I, and many others like me, aren't politicians, and we, quite possibly, can bring more integrity to the process, whereas, as you know, politicians may not be able to.

Which reminds me -- it's not the politician's responsibility to fix things, it's ours. And, oh, yah, I'll be damned if I'm going to be either a nice girl or a nice boy about it. As if, Ms. Traister, ONLY women are miffed about the principles of democracy being trampled on by the DNC and the DNC power brokers. For you to diminish and dismiss legitimate emotions based on anger about the abuse of principles of fairness and democracy as a mostly "personal" reaction, and not based on integrity, is a very superficial analysis, and ultimately demeaning.

Am I making myself clear? I am a PUMA member, and proud of it.

Take care, and best wishes,

PUMA PAC Action Center


Links to this post:

Create a Link