1st Draft: Declaration of PUMA Objections

This is a draft of a statement of objections regarding our opposition to Obama and our continued support of Hillary Clinton. I have based it on the Declaration of Sentiments, the seminal document of American Feminism. Some parts from that document have been unchanged, as no change was necessary. It is only a draft and is presented here with the idea that the community should have input into it. I think I have covered most of the bases, but if I have missed anything, please post it in comments.

Even if you don’t have suggestions, please post what you think about whether or not this useful. Thanks.

Update: If you’d rather make a private comment, there is a contact link on the right hand side of this page. Also, the text has been edited and reposted as of 4:00 P. M., July 1st, in an effort to clean up the more archaic language, and improve overall communicability. The title was also changed slightly.

Declaration of PUMA Objections

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 union 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 them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We hold these realities to be self-evident: that the United States political system is one of two parties, namely Republican and Democrat; that the reality of the two-party system is in contravention with the express desires of our founding fathers; that the two-party system diminishes choice in governance; that the two parties are directly responsible for the list of unconstitutional activity undertaken by the government in recent years; and that because of that activity, Americans are perilously close to the ultimate imperative of their citizenship: to insist upon the institution of a new government in the face of internal destruction.

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, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, 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 and usurpations on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of tyrannical 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.

Objections

The members of the 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 the Democratic Party Charter.

On that same day, the Democratic Party grossly violated ethical standards when it awarded 4 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 such rules.

The decisions of the RBC meeting mentioned above are evidence of sexism and authoritarianism within the ranks of the Democratic Party, and must be corrected before Convention in August.

Sexism is more evident than before not just because of the behavior of the mainstream press, but also because ordinary Americans, both male and female, engaged in it, and the issue must be addressed at the National party level.

Caucuses are a violation of the one person-one-vote and secret ballot principles upon which this country was founded, and 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.

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

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.

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.

Now, in view of the entire dismissal of one-half the people of the Democratic Party, their social degradation, in view of the unjust actions above mentioned, and in view of 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 immediately 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 effect our objectives. We will employ agents, circulate tracts and flyers, petition state and national Democratic leadership, and endeavor to enlist the press in our behalf.

Resolutions

Resolved, that the Democratic Party must seat the full Michigan and Florida delegation in adherence to the thoroughly Democratic principles 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 the Democratic Party cannot simultaneously call itself the party for women’s issue when they display such gross sexism as has been evident this year.

Resolved, that millions of women and men alike no longer think of the Democrats 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 caucuses should be abolished, and the Democratic Primary system in its entirety must be reformed to better reflect that one-person, one-vote principle, as well as the equal representation principle enshrined in the Constitution.

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 we are fighting for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, fighting against the infiltration of authoritarian tendencies into the Party.

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.

Advertisements

85 comments on “1st Draft: Declaration of PUMA Objections

  1. annabellep says:

    The supporting links are a big part of this document, so please feel free to offer opinions about them too, or to offer additional links that I may use as well. If this thing flies, I’ll post the final draft at a later date.

  2. CognitiveDissonance says:

    Annabelle, this is a great start on a statement that reflects all the grievances we have about this election. Thank you for the great work you’ve done! Just a few thoughts after my first reading:

    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 such rules.

    I would add to that the fact that their own rules state that if a penalty is assessed, that taking away 1/2 the delegates is the one stipulated in the rules. For most of the primary season, they had taken away ALL their delegates, thus putting Clinton behind in every news story that talked about delegate counts (in other words, most of them). This greatly disadvantaged her.

    Another big grievance many of us have is the proportional representation system itself. In most states, the districts with more African Americans were given more delegates than other demographic regions. Small town/rural areas were especially under-represented. In this election, that was a big advantage for Obama and a penalty for Clinton. Such a system is not representative of who is actually the strongest candidate. This is why Obama could end up with more delegates in a state he lost (Nevada), or come very close in delegate count in states that he lost. There is an eye-opening graphic over at the Fair Reflection blog:

    http://fair-reflection.blogspot.com

    It shows a list of 12 states, Clinton winning 11 and Obama only winning 1. And yet Clinton ends up with 555 delegates, Obama with 550 (just 5 more). This is obviously not any kind of reflection of who the electorate actually favored. (And of course, it is a sure formula for losing in November because the weakest candidate gets selected).

    We also know that each Clinton delegate required many more actual voters than each Obama delegate, probably because of the ridiculous apportionment already mentioned. But also because caucus states had far few voters per delegate rewarded.

    Another issue is Super Delegates. As we know from learning about their history, they were originally instituted to make sure the strongest candidate was selected, to make up for deficiencies in the system that I’ve already mentioned, and to keep the party from jumping off a cliff and selecting an unelectable candidate. As we saw this election, the SD’s didn’t take any time to actually look at all the collected data about the strongest candidate. There were many electoral maps available online that clearly showed Clinton vastly superior in a general election to Obama. I’ve also seen on a number of sites (don’t have the links handy) that Obama paid many of his SD’s. I think most of us can agree that SD’s shouldn’t be bought by one candidate to the detriment of the party and its election success in November.

    We’ve also seen many of the party leaders show obvious favoritism to Obama going back to January, trying to push Clinton out.

    And, of course, one of my top reasons for rejecting Obama utterly and completely is his smearing of the Clintons as racists. For me, and many others, there is no way I will reward anyone who would use such a repugnant tactic to win an election. As far as I’m concerned, that’s as bad as falsely accusing someone of being a child molester.

    Sorry for such a long comment. Hopefully, it will be helpful.

  3. annabellep says:

    Oh, it’s very helpful CD, and I appreciate it very much. I think I should flesh out the equal representation argument. I do think I covered the Calling-the-Clintons-racist aspect with the statement of exploiting race relations. The links lead you to specific Clinton-related material.

    I’m going to leave this up for now, but I’ve rethought a directly comparative Declaration with the Declaration of Sentiments. The language is too archaic to communicate effectively, so I’ll be re-writing the text portions around the Objections and Resolutions this afternoon.

    Thanks so much for participating here!

  4. Pixxelpuss says:

    Hey, this is off to a great start, especially the resolutions. When it’s finalized, I’d like permission to post it in its entirety on some relevant LJ comms (Clinton_2008, Bittersweeties, and Hilldogs4McCain). We have a fair number of PUMAs in those comms, and I’d like to see this made widely available.

  5. annabellep says:

    Absolutely, Pixxelpuss. You can reprint it now if you wish. Just direct readers here if they have recommendations, okay? If you’d rather wait for the final draft, that’s okay too.

    There’s a link to contact me on the right hand side of the page, so just e-mail me if you want a copy with html coding present.

  6. helenl says:

    Hi Annabelle, Thanks for dropping by my blog. I was for Hillary, too. But she isn’t the Democratic candidate. So let’s don’t defeat ourselves. Do we really want McCain to win?

  7. annabellep says:

    You’re welcome, Helen. If you’re asking if I’m okay with McCain winning, I am. And I don’t consider it self-defeating; I consider it self-defending. I’m sorry you can’t see the evidence that is right in front of your face, but hope that one day you will.

  8. annabellep says:

    Forgot one:

    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 Conventions.

  9. VioletPlanet says:

    Very powerful declaration except for the fact that PUMA supports voting for McCain. This is completely self-defeating and not want Hillary Clinton wants from her supporters. She ask us to support Obama. Howabout just don’t vote at all. By voting for McCain you become like the very candidate you despise…. Don’t you care about this planet’s future as a whole or is it just what YOU want and what YOU think is right? In their own way the Hillatrons are as bad as the Obamatrons…. Luckily, I don’t get too emotionally attached to any of it anymore accepting full-well the fact that we, the people have no power at all and that democracy disappeared right around the time John D. Rockefeller created Standard Oil. The sexism towards Hillary was unbelievable and shocking. It infuriated me beyond words…. I really thought this country was more racist than sexist…. Boy was I wrong. The best thing to defeat sexism in this country is NOT to vote for McCain but…to begin strengthen the women’s movement for the next female presidential candidate by calling and writing the news networks any time you see any sort of sexism towards any woman on television in anyway.

    I don’t like Obama either but he is better than McCain especially where global warming is concerned which is our most pressing issue at this time in history. Without a healthier planet, No one will have an opportunity to vote…PERIOD.

  10. VioletPlanet says:

    Oh and did I mention…McCain is Pro-Life?

    “In other words, if Pumas actually do vote for McCain, they’re presumably voting against what attracted them to Clinton in the first place. McCain’s dismal record on reproductive rights and other women’s issues is well-documented, and I can’t resist referencing the not-very-nice epithet he once hurled at his wife. And, of course, with that name, they’re expanding the annoying “cougar” meme — that women doing what they want makes them somehow predatory. So Puma anger might be well-justified, but sometimes, you just have to vote for the lesser of two evils — because you can’t throw your vote away on a third party. ”

    -LA TIMES

  11. annabellep says:

    First of all, Violet, welcome to the discourse. Second of all, nowhere in this document do we advocate voting for McCain. It is one option for using the leverage we have this year. Not every PUMA is voting for McCain.

    But for those who are, it is the height of hilarity to watch other people drive-by in comments to suggest that they are any kind of authority on the criteria another voter should use to cast their vote. We own our votes. They don’t belong to any political party. What you’re talking about is the old politics, which, for the record, most PUMAs were actually okay with.

  12. annabellep says:

    Oh, and did I mention…the politics of fear is useless on PUMAs? Abortion is a specter for Democrats, nothing more.

    “Since 2000, Democrats have capitulated on nearly every abortion front. No longer defiant in their willingness to entrench the right to privacy, they have changed their rhetoric. They now say abortion is abhorrent, and that they want to focus on minimizing the amount of abortions, rather than focus on defending the hard-fought fight. They openly cater to pro-lifers like Bob Casey, Jr. Don’t get me started on Bob Casey…

    How about on legislation? Any recent history of protection there? Nope. Probably the most egregious violation of Democrats’ constant promises to protect abortion rights was the Partial Birth Abortion act of 2003, which passed the Senate with the help of 17 Democrats, and the House with the help of 63 Democrats. The law was later upheld with the help of the 22 Democratic Senators who voted for Roberts and the 4 Democratic Senators who voted for Alito, both of whom went to the SCOTUS and voted to uphold it. That’s a total of 106 Senate votes by Democrats that resulted in losing ground on Roe V Wade. In just one example.”

    -P&L

  13. diana says:

    annabellep,
    Excellent 1st draft. There are a few typos and some sentences that need tweaking, but I do prefer what you refer to as the “archaic” language. It is a language that all Americans can relate to, as it is an integral part of the documents that could be considered the “birth certificates” of this nation. It is official language. I hope you keep it.

    There is some very powerful stuff in that draft. Will re-read and post comments later.

    Thank you for the investment of time and energy you’ve put into this. Consider approaching the Denver group (heidilipotpurri.com). Once revised, I can see this declaration being read at the convention.

  14. VioletPlanet says:

    Thanks for your reply Annabelle. For the record, I am an INDEPENDENT. Always have been, always will be. I agree the 2-Party System is totally corrupt. After all, they’re all shareholders aren’t they? And both parties are owned and operated by various multi-conglomerates so…what to do? There is no government. “There are no peoples. There is only Exxon, Mobil, Shell…etc.” (see the film NETWORK). Total anarchy of some kind may be the only way…but first…how to motivate the “bewildered herd” from their materialistic mind-numbing stupor.” Yes, we do own our votes but sometimes you have to do what is best for the country at that time. Sometimes you have to take baby steps in order to take big steps. Revolution comes from within the system not from outside it! If you want to beat the devil then you have to dance with him.

  15. annabellep says:

    That was a cool response, Violet, so props to you. Seriously, I was a bit snarky and you didn’t take the bait. I admire that.

    That said we are at a fundamental disagreement. I do not believe that now is the time to take baby steps toward some revolution. I don’t consider withholding my vote from Obama to be in the worst interests of the country, on the contrary, I see it as in the best interests. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results, we are wasting more time.

    The way I see it is that I am taking a risk for real change. I’ll still be here, registered Democrat if Obama loses. They will have a chance to change, and if they do, I will remain, and continue to vote for them as I have done for 18 years now. But they will change nothing, as they have clearly demonstrated through two presidential elections, as long as we give them our votes because the Republicans are so vile. They must offer us a REASON to vote FOR them, not to vote against the opposition.

  16. VioletPlanet says:

    Anabelle,

    2 sources of references:

    This blogger Melissa McEwan documented practically every misogynistic statement uttered by the news pundits and journalists. The one below is # 106. Google: Hillary Sexism Watch to get the others. They are all individual pages.

    Hillary Sexism Watch.
    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/06/hillary-sexism-watch-106.html

    Destroying Hillary Clinton: Article in today’s Guardian UK News
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/hillaryclinton.uselections2008

  17. VioletPlanet says:

    Essentially, we both want the same things: A less corrupt system, a true Democracy and some form of Socialized Capitalism that enables a more equal give and take for everyone. (if that is at all possible). We just have different ways of going about it. You want to be a bull in a china shop and I want to be a snake in the grass. Perhaps we can combine forces and make some serious things happen in this country before its too late…if it isn’t already. Christ! My main concern is the global warming issue. If we don’t reverse that…then all is for naught in the end.

  18. VioletPlanet says:

    Thoughts?

    Feminism Past and Present:
    Ideology, Action, and Reform

    CAMILLE PAGLIA
    Click Here to View .pdf Version (Recommended)
    Feminism is back in the news. After a long period when feminist debate has been mainly confined to Web sites and to books that, however well reviewed, did not find a readership beyond that of other feminists, the current presidential campaign has restored gender war to the center ring. There has been an explosion of international publicity and acrimony over the candidacy of Hillary Clinton: Article Continues:

    http://www.bu.edu/arion/Paglia%2016-1.html

  19. annabellep says:

    I meant to get back here, Violet. I am familiar with Melissa’s sexism series, and Shakes is on the blogroll. I saw her article, but haven’t had time to read it yet due to family stuff. I’ll have to check out the Paglia piece too. For now, I’m off to bed, utterly exhausted by my two rambunctious, and totally adorable nephews.

  20. Steven Mather says:

    Paglia’s piece is worth reading for what it does and does not say.

    A couple comments/concerns:

    labour saving devices have played a significant role in emancipation, but Capitalism is not their only font. This said, our mixed economies have done the best job of creating, producing, and distributing the devices.

    I think Camille does herself a disservice by not noting that Clinton ran as a post-feminist candidate in the sense that she did not run as an hyphenated candidate. She became a feminist icon due to the sexist, ad hominem, and fallacious attacks she endured. Interestingly, the attacks she received did not tend to be nuanced or subtle, apart from Barack’s “Periodically, when she’s feeling down…she tends to lash out…” Camiile should have acknowledged Barack’s juvenile, pig latiny-coded, sexist jab.

  21. VioletPlanet says:

    “Camiile should have acknowledged Barack’s juvenile, pig latiny-coded, sexist jab.”

    And let’s not forget how Obama got into the habit of calling women: “Sweetie.”

  22. regencyg says:

    Amazing declaration, Annabelle. I’d like to send this to some people but I’d like to add something. I don’t know if you’d even find it necessary in the long run though. There have been several events of intimidation, if not outright violence towards Clinton supporters from Obama supporters and perhaps a mention of that in one of the articles could be potent. If not, it’s definitely something worth publishing a post on.

    Once again, powerful declaration. When you post the final version tonight I’ll pass it on.

  23. Jo says:

    I created a new PUMA Cal to Action forum which I hope people will participate in.

    I have a section for Calls to ACTION for people to send information about to the links/contacts provided and their own lists. Please add your contacts to the Contact thread.

    I did this so that we can get most of the actionable items/stories/news releases, etc. to the media, officials, blogs, etc. in one place and make sure we are getting the word out!

    Also, if you have favorite blogs/websites,forums, please add to the pertinent thread!

    Thanks!

    http://www.freepowerboards.com/PUMACalltoAction/index.php

  24. DWPforHILL says:

    Very moving declaration, Annabelle. This is a most worthy effort and should be widely disseminated and supported. Thank you for working on this for PUMAs everywhere.

  25. Valhalla says:

    Annabelle —

    This is tremendous. I also like the old-fashioned language, I think it resonates with people.

    One thing, though, that jumped out at me a bit:

    “Sexism is more evident than before not just because of the behavior of the mainstream press, but also because ordinary Americans, both male and female, engaged in it, and the issue must be addressed at the National party level.”

    It’s beyond just more evident, I think. One reason sexism and misogyny was allowed to flourish this campaign was the ‘deafening silence’ of the Democratic Leadership. It was ignored as long as it helped Obama. The Democratic Party is nothing if it is not the party that will stand up for its own, ALL of its own. Could I suggest some edits?:

    “Sexism was allowed to flourish as never before not only because of the behavior of the mainstream media, but also by the actions of progressive online advocates, 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. This issue must be addressed at the National party level.”

    Sorry this comes so late, I only just heard of the Declaration a few mintues ago.

  26. annabellep says:

    Oh, Valhalla, I like it! I think I’ll copy it directly to the text before posting the final tonight.

    If anyone has a blog and wants to coordinate posting the final to theirs, e-mail me at peacocksandlilies@gmail.com.

    Also, thanks to everyone for your input and feedback! We will make an impact!

  27. annabellep says:

    Jo, I’ll try to post it there too. I’ve got a list of places I’m going to post it, including Alegre’s corner, the PUMA facebook message board, MyDD, and dKos. I know those last two aren’t PUMA sites, but damn it, they will hear us!

  28. VioletPlanet says:

    “Sexism is more evident than before not just because of the behavior of the mainstream press, but also because ordinary Americans, both male and female, engaged in it, and the issue must be addressed at the National party level.”

    What is interesting about the sexism/misogyny displayed by the media and people in general is the fact that the majority of them were and are unconscious of it. This just shows how deeply ingrained it is….

  29. Valhalla says:

    Violet — I think the deeply ingrained and unconscious parts is what makes it so insidious.

    And yet, I’m not willing to ascribe unconscious of it to many of those who perpetrated it. I think of it as more of a sort of malign negligence.

    It’s a pronounced reluctance to be informed enough or interested enough to make sure ones’ words or actions do not perpetrate serious wrongs.

    If I can pontificate a bit on that point — in law, when you intentionally commit a bad act, there are criminal penalties. That is loss of liberty (and in some cases life).

    But there are also penalties for committing unintentional bad acts. Those are civil penalties (usually loss of money). You’re liable if you cause a harm while acting with less care than a reasonable person would. Civil penalties are meant to make the harmed person ‘whole’ again, and to give people an incentive to take care in not harming others.

    A great deal of the sexism I saw falls into the negligence category. Of course, the whole world is not a court of law so there’s no way to get damages for it in the traditional sense. But I also feel strongly that there still must be a cost, even if it was just negligence.

    Of course, there was an awful lot of intentional misogyny out there, all billed as in service to the cause.

    I’m not saying you disagree, I was just thinking about your unconsciousness point.

  30. annabellep says:

    Wow, excellent point, Valhalla. Are you an attorney?

    I also had a question for you. I’m using your suggestion from earlier to replace that objection, but I’ve recycled my links. I wondered if you had an example of a particularly egregious sexism on the part of progressive online activist? I’m thinking of a few, but I thought you might have had something in mind when you wrote that. If you can post something in response by about 11:30 tonight, I can include it in the release. Thanks!

  31. sheltiemom says:

    It seems rather obvious that the MSM/Obama surrogates-shills-mouthpieces work products were of a malignant and blatant nature regarding the verbal and visual denigrations of Hillary Clinton during the primaries. These were the folks who had the forums, day in and day out, to reach thousands – nay, millions of us out here in Voterland. Call it whatever you want – sexism, misogyny – it was quite consciously perpetrated to bring down her candidacy once she began to find her game again, because she now posed a very real threat to the Land of O and the powerbrokers who were pushing him. Hillary’s new-found successes were ridiculed or even ignored whenever possible so that we, the voters, wouldn’t realize how well she was doing. But a funny thing happened as the primaries moved along. Our Girl was winning, and winning Big as the Wizard of O began to falter. And then, when that sad day arrived and our heroine suspended, PUMA arose and a new day began.

    As I’ve said before, when PUMAs growl, we mean it.

    “It isn’t over until it’s over.” – Y. Berra

  32. Valhalla says:

    Annabelle —

    Thanks! I used to be an attorney (well, I guess I still am, I just work with nonprofits now in a nonlegal capacity — I’m not sure if you can ever stop being a lawyer once you start!).

    I don’t have a specific example of online sexism — I stopped reading most of the ‘A-list’ blogs months ago because of the cumulative effect of having read so many sexist arguments and comments. And then tried to wipe them from my mind aside from making jokes about it.

    I was thinking (because I’m an obsessive reviser) that I wasn’t totally happy with the phrase “by the actions of progressive online advocates”. Maybe “by the actions of many in the progressive online community” would be better. Because it’s certainly not all of them (just the loudest ones, seems like). And the same way we resent being called racists just for not supporting Obama, we should probably not ascribe sexism to the whole community.

    Also — and if it’s too late or you (or you all) disagree that’s fine — I was thinking about one paragraph in the Declaration all afternoon. That is the one that starts “We hold these realities to be self-evident.”

    I think it reads a bit like we are declaring a third party, or our wishes for a third party (or maybe no parties). I think many PUMAs do wish for a third party, but not all of them. Also, I think it could be misinterpreted as PUMA having a more radical stance on the system than we really do. For example, I would be perfectly happy as long as ONE party was responsive to my interests and the principles of democracy, and was willing to fight for such.

    Can I again suggest some changes? (again, if it’s too late, totally cool, I’m just sorry I was late to this):

    We hold these realities to be self-evident: that the United States political system is one of two parties, namely Republican and Democrat; that these parties have contravened the express desires of our founding fathers to secure our inalienable rights; that these parties have diminished our choices in governance; that they are jointly responsible for the unconstitutional activities undertaken by the government in recent years; and that because of that activity, Americans are perilously close to the ultimate imperative of their citizenship: to insist upon the institution of a new government in the face of internal destruction.

    (it’s not all that different).

    And finally (and thanks for indulging my windy comment!), some language popped into my head to maybe add to the last paragraph before the resolutions section — it’s a bit rough so use it or not as you wish —

    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 effect our objectives. But we will reclaim our rights as Americans and as Democrats. We will accept neither excuse nor evasion on the part of our leaders. We will accept neither belittlement to our cause nor distrust of our loyalty to the core democratic principles of our nation. We will employ agents etc etc.

    Again, sorry, sorry, sorry this is all so late.

  33. annabellep says:

    No, no worries, Valhalla. This thing got going late, and then it got viral late. It’s only 9:30 here, and we have two more hours before it has to be e-mailed and set up for publication at 12:01. I will consider your ideas, absolutely.

    I do hear you on that realities to be self-evident part. I wondered if I wasn’t going over there. But it is what I beleive, and what most of us actually fear is already true. That we no longer have a choice.

    Also, and this is the salesperson in me (I’m not a sales person, but my mother always said I could talk a lion out of eating me), I have to wonder if it isn’t an invaluable opportunity to expand the movement, ya know? There are a lot of people out there hungry, and if we can make them hear us with a document like this, and also give them something to satisfy them, then maybe they’ll be inclined to join us. Or at least support us. I don’t know. You raise a valid point. I will consider it, and hopefully someone else will chime in with an opinion in the meantime.

    I’ll have to give your third suggestions some thought as well. I’m trying to read the whole document out loud right now to identify stumbling points, and that paragraph is a little blocky. It’s just vaguely modified from the D of S.

    PS- I know what you mean about chronic editing! I edited this comment in when I fixed a typo… Heh.

  34. Valhalla says:

    Annabelle — I think I’m thinking of the ‘we hold these realities’ paragraph from more of a marketing point of view. Or, maybe to put it better, an appeal point of view.

    We want anyone who shares our feelings and our revulsion at the actions listed to know there’s a place for them and that there are options to voting for BO. Some people are just disgusted across the board, but some are disgusted with this particular iteration of the Democrat Party, and I think we want to be open to both.

    PUMAs are still debating, for instance, not voting top of the ticket vs third party vs McCain; but you didn’t put just one of those things in there, because our common cause is not one particular action for just the GE. I wouldn’t want to put anyone off who’s already on board or might be on board because this goes too far for them.

    Also, if that is really what we are declaring — a third party as a goal — then that is a huge step that I think we’d need a really strong consensus on. I’m not sure there is strong one on this, though.

    Anyway, just my opinion, again. I hope to see other folks’ opinions!

  35. katiebird says:

    Annabelle — wow. I’m overwhelmed and impressed. And still struggling with an inexplicable speechlessness.

  36. josgirl says:

    I just have a couple of quick nits to pick.
    First, I think the racial manipulation and exploitation warrants more emphasis.
    Seems to me this was more than tacit approval, it was more like a deliberate DNC orchestrated campaign tactic.
    It started early and was almost tantamount to voter intimidation.
    Black voters supporting Hillary Clinton, like me, were made to feel especially unwelcome in the Democratic party.
    Which brings me to another point.
    I withdrew from the party and am now registered as No Party Affiliation.
    How many others like me identify themselves as PUMA’s but took action to formally sever ties with the party that abandoned them?
    Are we included?
    Lastly, is there a way to eliminate crossover voting, closed primaries maybe?
    A Democrat encouraging Republicans to vote for him seems wrong.
    If it’s just me, I understand, but these things still infuriate me along with all the other points you make.

  37. Honora says:

    Sorry, but the hour is late (metaphorically and not time wise) and I will be frank. I understand the whole make it sound like historic document thing, but I do not think that it works. We need to speak to America today. It needs to be short and sweet. I too am a lawyer, now mom, the Objectives and Resolutions are on target, but too wordy. The entire Declarations part needs to be in 2008 American English and short. Please forgive me. I know that I am critical w/o the editing skills. Please have Riverdaughter do her magic on it, and let it go viral.

  38. annabellep says:

    Okay V–I’ve showered and thought about it (I do my best thinking in and directly after a shower), and I have two new arguments in favor of the Realities clause that I want to try out on you.

    First, I think the strong language puts all the right players on notice that we see exactly what is happening. The right players being members of both parties.

    Secondly, it’s an appeal to history, which I think is an important part of the PUMA movement. Not only do we know it and appreciate far more than your average American, I see it as part of our duty to try to put recent events in context of history. It is part of who we are. Anglachel, Riverdaughter, myself, so many more. That’s kinda what we do, ya know?

    But I am not opposed to hearing your response to these. They were just thoughts that occurred to me that I wanted to offer.

    Going back to read new comments now…

  39. annabellep says:

    Read your last comment V. I think you’re right. I’m yanking it.

  40. annabellep says:

    josgirl,

    I appreciate the input on the racial objection. I agree that this is an aspect of what went down that is not talked about enough. I have tried to enumerate our complaints so that everything is balanced as just stating what went down in a dispassionate way, because our audience is not only fellow PUMAs, but also non-PUMAs who may have a hard time understanding us otherwise. I didn’t see any orchestration on the part of the Democratic party, but I did see a ton of orchestration on the part of Democrats associated with the Obama campaign. That’s what I’m trying to get across here. I do understand it was particularly viscous within the black community. I still don;t understand that.

    That said, of course there is room for you and other non-affiliated PUMAs. But are we trying to work the Convention or start a third party? I’m inclined to think our best course of action is to petition the Convention for action, and if that fails, pursue extra-party options. Does that make sense?

    I made a note about your closed primary comment. Not sure I can work it in, but I will try. I think it’s absolutely part of the core of this. The whole “Republican for a day” thing. One thing to consider is that both sides benefited from crossover voting (even though only one of them so nakedly encouraged it).

    I need coffee…

  41. annabellep says:

    Honora,

    It’s getting a bit late to just hand it over to RD, but I take your meaning, and will consider it. I had second thoughts about that before, but the only feedback I got was that people liked it.

  42. bostonboomer says:

    Annabellep,

    Thank you for all your hard work. This is great. I like the archaic language too. I’m trying to figure out how to find my local party HQ. Would it be the Obama for President office or what? Or maybe there is some way of posting to their website?

    Also, could you let us know at the Confluence when to post this at DK and MyDD so we can go rec it? I never was able to get an accout and MyDD, but I’d like to rec it and comment on it at DK. This is exciting! Thanks again!

  43. annabellep says:

    I certainly will, BB. I’m opening several windows at 11:30 to begin dropping the text in. As soon as it’s done, I’ll post to the Confluence. They’ll be last. The publishing begins at 12:01. I have a few who are getting copies via e-mail to post on their websites simultaneously. Is the Confluence interested?

  44. annabellep says:

    “They’ll” being dK and DD.

  45. annabellep says:

    Okay, coffee and oatmeal, and then at 11:00 EDT, I’ll begin the final edit. It goes out via e-mail at 11:30. This is your last chance to offer an opinion.

  46. josgirl says:

    The fact that this is the anniversary of MLK’s I Have A Dream speech and RFK’s assassination along with the date of the convention leads me to believe that nominating a black candidate was the ultimate goal of the DNC.
    That means everything done on his behalf was part of a coordinated effort, including drafting and grooming him in the first place.
    As far as the convention/3rd party question, I’m not sure.
    My primary goal would be to nominate HRC, barring that all I’m sure about is that changes need to be made.
    Also only one candidate got 70 percent of Republican votes in Wisc. and Va. and did Democrat for a Day ads in Pa.
    In fact, I think Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos was an attempt to cover-up the effects of BHO’s Republican support.
    But that’s another topic for another time.

  47. josgirl says:

    Annabellep, ignore me.
    Go with what you’ve got, it’s great.
    I’m just venting and you don’t need the hassle.

  48. annabellep says:

    One more quick thought, Josgirl, regarding your second point. Probably the unifying feature of PUMA is Hillary, and if we petition the convention, that will only embue her with power. If we walk away right away, it does nothing for her. Does that make sense?

  49. annabellep says:

    Oh, hey, venting is totally allowed here. It’s part of the point. 😀

  50. annabellep says:

    Ooooh, I see your point about the MLK thing. I do. Hadn’t really thought of that.

  51. annabellep says:

    FTR, I thought about cutting the “We hold these truths to be self-evident” part based on honora’s appeal for brevity, but I think it might keep it, because I think it really tags us as Constitutional democrats/independents.

  52. annabellep says:

    Finally, here’s my misgiving on the closed primary thing: Yes, Obama gamed it. BUT, there may be times, especially really really bad times (like now, and it did happen in some cases) that crossing over may be warranted. And people may forget to re-register, or something may happen at the last minute so that they can’t. I’m inclined not to oppose closed primaries, and I’m not sure how I can include language that opposes gaming them.

  53. josgirl says:

    For the record, I answered you over on the Confluence, but here it is for what its worth.

    Annabellep, I assume you mean my point about no longer being a Democrat.
    I agree that this is about HRC and the huge issues that surround her being shafted by her own party, but a big part of what I saw in the early days of the PUMA movement was sheer, incredulous outrage at being abandoned by the Democratic party.
    It was so great (the pain and shock) that many of us said to hell with it and just rejected the party that we felt rejected us first.
    We’re not Independants, we’re Dems in exile.
    I’m sure if the party wanted us back, we’d gladly re-join.

    Now, go do your thing, keep your focus where your heart is.
    My points will keep.

  54. bostonboomer says:

    annabellep,

    The Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer is here.

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

  55. bostonboomer says:

    I tried to post the link to The Authoritarians, but I think it went to moderation.

  56. annabellep says:

    I got it. Thanks!

  57. VioletPlanet says:

    Valhalla:

    RE: Unconscious Sexism vs. Conscious:

    You wrote:

    “A great deal of the sexism I saw falls into the negligence category. Of course, the whole world is not a court of law so there’s no way to get damages for it in the traditional sense. But I also feel strongly that there still must be a cost, even if it was just negligence.”

    I totally agree with your negligence point of course. The sexism was definitely conscious the majority of the time BUT…was the misogyny?

    There is a difference: i.e. Did Keith Olbermann know that he was being a misogynist when he said someone ought to take Hillary into a room and only he come out. He later apologized for this remark after it was brought to his attention that indeed it reeked of misogyny. Did Obama know he was being misogynistic when he compared Hillary to a domestic cat with claws that come out? Did any of the commentators male and female realize that comparing Hillary to a man was utterly and completely degrading, etc.? And don’t get me started on Chris Tweetybird Matthews.

    In short, this is what we are up against. Women have been complaining about this kind of behavior publicly since the dawn of the 60s-70s-Women’s Movement and nothing has rectified it. It’s an an indestructible plague that seems to be ingrained in our social DNA. I don’t believe it can be stopped!

  58. Zee says:

    Annabelle,

    Great concept, well executed!

    However, I think the Declaration portion should be severely streamlined. I would completely throw out the second and third paragraph for these reasons:

    1. Modern day language is more streamlined, and this document is for a specific grievance, so digressions divert attention from the points we specifically want to make.

    2. Coming at the head of the document it may cause people to start skimming, or to dismiss the document outright, particularly as it too closely apes the previous documents.

    3. The first paragraph segues nicely into the fourth paragraph to make a succinct declaration in preamble to the points outlined below.

    4. Specifically, the second paragraph is a repetition of things everyone knows. Yes, it’s a repetition of all that we hold dearest, but if you feel it should be reiterated, I would suggest there be added some of of conclusion and it be added there.

    5. The third paragraph is the biggest problem. This entire document is to address grievances to the Democratic Party.
    If you are damning the entire two party system at the beginning of the document, one would have to assume that an entirely DIFFERENT set of demands would follow, outlining the formation of some completely new system. Therefore, there is no need for those in the Democratic Party to even keep reading. And those who would agree with that paragraph would find the topic entirely dropped from that moment on.

    It’s just inserted in there, a typically glib meme that thrives on the internet…and if someone wants to overthrow the two party system, have at it. That’s not what this document outlines, though, and it damages the direct appeal to right these specific wrongs.

  59. Zee says:

    “I don’t like Obama either but he is better than McCain especially where global warming is concerned which is our most pressing issue at this time in history. Without a healthier planet, No one will have an opportunity to vote…PERIOD.”

    Nice try, VioletPlanet, but McCain has been front and center promoting ways to combat global warming and dwindling resources in order to leave our kids a healthier planet.

    And now that Obama has adopted the same war stance as McCain, there is no reason to fear a McCain presidency over one with the inexperienced, pandering fraud that is Obama.

  60. Zee says:

    VioletPlanet
    Oh and did I mention…McCain is Pro-Life?

    —-

    Dead givaway for a MALE OBAMA TROLL.

    Same language as Obama’s
    “Oh, and did I mention, he’s black?” which pre-emptively accused McCain of planning a racist attack.

    Don’t worry your little violet head over our wombs.

    Maybe our BIG HEADS, you know, the ones that THINK, are appalled at the Obamatrolls trying to hold us hostage by our bodies and choices.

    1. No one who thinks is worried about Roe v. Wade, since it hasn’t been overturned and it won’t be.

    2. Roe has been used for political purposes…mostly to rile up the rightwing base, but now that’s the OBAMA CAMP’S club they are trying to beat us with, like cave men

    3. Why don’t you JOIN THE 21st century? The morning after pill will render abortions obsolete, with the exception of health-related abortions.

    4. Obama just came out with ANOTHER restriction on women’s choice…he also voted “present” on matters of choice, so how is he pro-choice?

    And before you trolls trot out the LIE that Obama came up with that “present” vote as a strategy, he represented a LIBERAL constitutuency…. his seat was not in danger for voting pro-choice. So, the only reasons he would vote presents are:

    a. he’s not pro-choice

    or

    b. he always had in mind to run for higher office and got started on his PANDERING to the rightwing early on.

  61. Zee says:

    Annabelle, great responses to the troll! “Thoughts?” is another typical troll givaway…the attempt to engage…

    This DemMcCrat for a day will be posting this Declaration where the state Dem headquarters can see it….

    I can see your action has caused great consternation amongst the Obama camp.

    Probably because his own core support is crumbling in the stark reality of his recent flipflop pandering, so any strong stand by the PUMA coalition will seriously undermine plain old Dem support for the fraud they are trying to push on us.

  62. Zee says:

    22 regency has a good point about intimidation

    and I think this is the place for mentioning it:

    “In entering upon the work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule”

    “intimidation” could be listed before or after “ridicule.”

    It would serve to further emphasize this important point, and I think it needs to be represented because it will be another distinct reaction we will face.

  63. annabellep says:

    Hey folks. I did not know there was a discussion about revision going on here. The revised document was posted this morning at 12:01 at my blog and around the web. I think the revisions you guys are mentioning are mostly addressed, though I did keep the second paragraph because of the connection of this document to this day (and those two movement in particular, the Revolution and American Feminism), and for the presentation on the holiday. I do like Regency’s suggestion regarding intimidation, Zee, so thank you for that comment (and thanks Reg for making the suggestion. I simply missed it.). I won’t change the post at my blog, but will make that change for uses in the future.

    Going forward, this document may be modified by a number of PUMAs, and may reach the convention as merely the Objections and Resolutions. This is just a start. And the document posted last night is significantly revised by various PUMAa already, so I encourage you to check out that version:

    https://annabellep.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/declaration-of-objections/

    Also, thank you all for the phenomenal feedback this has been getting.

  64. Zee says:

    25 Valahalla:

    I like this edit:

    “Sexism was allowed to flourish as never before not only because of the behavior of the mainstream media, but also by the actions of progressive online advocates, 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. This issue must be addressed at the National party level.”

  65. Zee says:

    30 Valhalla….

    salient points.

    Before Tim Russert was deified by dying, he held a panel discussion on whether sexism was at play in the media.

    The panel was composed entirely of men…who ridiculed the notion.

    Almost defies belief, does it not?

  66. Zee says:

    31, annabelle, if you are sending a release, please use the Tim Russert panel as an example of media misconduct.

    I can’t think of one particular example of sexism by the fauxgressives online, but the ongoing (as evidenced by this very thread) attempt by the Obama cave man camp to club women over the head with Roe v Wade scare tactics is my particular pet peeve.

    If you don’t have a womb, stfu…if you do, get a clue. It’s a brave new world out there. In fact, we have other problems….celebrity pregnancies influencing young teens to make pregnancy pacts.

    It starts here. The message is the problem. Let’s not let the Tim Russerts and Britney Spears of the world frame the issue.

  67. annabellep says:

    Ha, Zee, I love your fire! If you are peeved by Roe terrorism (that’s what it is), you might check out my series titled The Specter of Roe v Wade. There are three, and they are part of the reason I started this blog. I wanted to diffuse that issue in particular.

  68. Zee says:

    33 Valhalla, I completely concur on the third party section and I also second your suggested revisions.

  69. VioletPlanet says:

    Zee:

    I suggest you keep an open-mind and look at the big picture if you want to achieve anything at all. I am by no means a McCain supporter or an Obamatron.

    The problem is….if McCain wins….you will have 4 more years of Bush. Do you want that? Remember, a Democratic House/Congress is meaningless. The Powers that own our Government are Right Wing. They will do whatever they want as Bush has done for the last 8 years. You are not sending any message at all except one that is a waste of time. If Obama wins, more than likely he will be a lame duck with some progress on social programs and the environment. Better these little steps than another 4 years of supported Fascism with no resistance. When you give McCain power, you strengthen the corporations. When you give Obama power, you get some scraps for the poor and a fight for the environment or you get NOTHING which is better than McCain still. Where has PUMA been for the last eight years? What happened to Hillary re: MI/FL is nothing new in politics.

  70. Zee says:

    69 annabelle…

    I certainly will check it out!

    I am always reading up on rebuttal points.

    I forgot this one: with the advanced state of paternity tests these days there is no way in HELL that MEN will allow Roe v Wade to be overturned! lololol

    Case in point: the Libertarian candidate for prez this year, Bob Barr, advocates the DEATH penalty for abortion doctors and all involved.

    Yet, he himself drove his second wife to the clinic and paid for her abortion to clear the way for wife #3.

    Somehow I doubt he really intends to offer his own neck to the guillotine.

  71. Zee says:

    71 Violet,

    I am definitely a big picture type.

    Which is why I didn’t read any further.

    Take your “Thoughts?” distractions elsewhere. We have a declaration to write.

    Nice try, though. I see they sent the top of the line troll here, which indicates to me that annabelle is onto something.

  72. Zee says:

    “Also, and this is the salesperson in me (I’m not a sales person, but my mother always said I could talk a lion out of eating me), I have to wonder if it isn’t an invaluable opportunity to expand the movement, ya know? There are a lot of people out there hungry, and if we can make them hear us with a document like this”

    Annabelle, I know I am even later than Valhalla, and I haven’t even gotten to the revised document, but I strongly feel this is NOT the time to expand the movement, especially with distracting talk of “third” parties.

    Here’s why:

    1. We already have 1,001 “third” parties. See my above comment on the Libertarian candidate. See what the Libertarians stand for and then ask if we really even want an alliance with them.

    2. We can revise the party we have and that is the task at hand. Bill Nelson, of Florida, has already introduced voting reform legislation. This has long been a dream of mine to work on voting reform. We have to get through the pressing issue of the situation at hand before we turn our attention to reform!

    3. I read the links in your latest post. It took the women YEARS to draft their declaration. Fine, we live in hyper-time, comparatively, but wouldn’t it be great, after the current turmoil is resolved one way or another, to take the time to really think about and detail our perfectly envisioned future?

    In fact, I would like to help. I have already been working on it and combined with supporting Bill Nelson’s legislation we CAN and we WILL transform our democratic landscape.

    I can email you regarding details. But meanwhile, please…

    let’s stick to the issue at hand without dragging future possibilities in to detract from our mission at hand!

  73. Zee says:

    35 Valhalla

    “Also, if that is really what we are declaring — a third party as a goal — then that is a huge step that I think we’d need a really strong consensus on. I’m not sure there is strong one on this, though.

    Anyway, just my opinion, again. I hope to see other folks’ opinions!”

    So glad to see I’m not alone in objecting to the third party issue!!!

  74. Zee says:

    38 Honora
    Sorry, but the hour is late (metaphorically and not time wise) and I will be frank. I understand the whole make it sound like historic document thing, but I do not think that it works. We need to speak to America today. It needs to be short and sweet. I too am a lawyer, now mom, the Objectives and Resolutions are on target, but too wordy. The entire Declarations part needs to be in 2008 American English and short. Please forgive me. I know that I am critical w/o the editing skills. Please have Riverdaughter do her magic on it, and let it go viral.

    ====

    I completely concur with this.

  75. Zee says:

    41. annabelle

    I made a note about your closed primary comment. Not sure I can work it in, but I will try. I think it’s absolutely part of the core of this. The whole “Republican for a day” thing.

    ====

    No need to include specifics like this.

    We need to focus on the fixing of the primary as it stood with the rules that were in play at the time.

    As far as repairing future primaries….that’s for AFTER this convention. And Bill Nelson has already started.

  76. Zee says:

    43 BostonBoomer, if you are in MA, the party headquarters used to be in Quincy but they moved to Boston.

    Not sure where, but it can be looked up.

    I would be up for meeting there on Monday and posting this document in a prominent place or handing it out!

  77. VioletPlanet says:

    Zee:

    Of course you did not read any further. Your mind is closed to reality like a true fanatic . The Declaration is great and should be distributed widely. However, supporting McCain will get your cause no where, no how. I will be here to say I told you so….down the road as will Hillary.

  78. Zee says:

    Note that it is only the site admin and the TROLL who are keeping up with an old thread.

    Another. Dead. Givaway.

  79. Zee says:

    47 josgirl

    Also only one candidate got 70 percent of Republican votes in Wisc. and Va. and did Democrat for a Day ads in Pa.
    In fact, I think Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos was an attempt to cover-up the effects of BHO’s Republican support.
    But that’s another topic for another time.

    =====

    VERY interesting and I want to see it written up! I wondered why the hell Wisconsin went for the fraud.

  80. Zee says:

    51 annabellep
    Ooooh, I see your point about the MLK thing. I do. Hadn’t really thought of that.

    ===

    Yep, just like Bush, they orchestrate imagery. They’ve got a dream, and we’re stuck with a nightmare.

    This is why they fought so hard to undercut Hillary’s victories. We definitely need to elaborate on these tactics at another time.

  81. VioletPlanet says:

    Zee:

    4. Obama just came out with ANOTHER restriction on women’s choice…he also voted “present” on matters of choice, so how is he pro-choice?

    Question for you: Is he more or less pro-choice than McCain?

    Personally, I am against partial birth abortion (unless the Mother is in danger of dying) but FOR abortion in the 1st trimester. Your position is way too extreme. If you cannot see the different shades of each issue then you invite destruction and stagnation to your cause. What did Hillary ask us to do in her concession speech?

  82. b mathews says:

    AS A WOMAN AND A HILLARY SUPPORTER, I AM THRILLED TO SEE SO MANY OF US TAKING A STAND AGAINST THE HORRIFIC WAY SEN. CLINTON WAS TREATED DURING THIS CAMPAIGN. I WATCHED EVERY CABLE NEWS SHOW FROM DAY ONE AND FOUND CHRIS MATHEWS, K OLBERMANN, AND JACK CAFFERTY TO BE AMONGST THE WORST. WISH WE COULD BRING A LAW SUIT AGAINST THEM TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN IN THE FUTURE. ANYONE OUT THERE KNOW IF THIS IS FEASIBLE? ALSO LETS KEEP IN MIND THAT SINCE THE SENATE AND THE CONGRESS WILL MOST SUREDLY BECOME A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN NOV., MCCAINS HANDS WILL BE TIED FROM DOING MUCH DAMAGE. THEREFORE I WOULD HAVE NO COMPUNCTION ABOUT VOTING FOR HIM. NO OBAMA..EVER.

  83. VioletPlanet says:

    RE: McCain’s hands tied from doing much damage because of a Democratic House & Senate: that didn’t stop Bush for the last couple of years did it? What you PUMAS don’t realize is that the President, The House and The Senate: Our Government is owned by the Corporations. They have the last say. It is easier for the Corporations to get away with doing their dirty work if they have no resistance which is McCain. Obama equals some resistance. Hillary would have equaled resistance.

    Before you can change reality, you must accept what it truly is….and the reality at present is: There is no Constitution to uphold the laws of Government. The last 8 years under Bush has proven that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s