Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory

by Geekesque, Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM EST

You've heard the latest rumor and follow-up demand from the deadenders who claimed that Howard Dean is conspiring to keep Clinton off the ballot at Denver and prevent a roll call vote.

Howard Dean, giving an interview to Chris Bower, shoots that one down.

When asked about the ads criticizing him and Speaker Pelosi for Clinton supposedly not being on the ballot at the convention, he scoffed. Clinton will be on the ballot at the convention, and will be speaking there.

So, he's caved to the pressure of the ardent Clinton supporters, right?

Nope.

Dean indicated that the rules were so clear on this matter, that the groups running these ads and spreading these rumors must be associated with the other internet rumors going around, such as Obama being a Muslim. He also speculated that McCain supporters might be behind these rumors.

Ouch.

To recap:

Clinton will be on the ballot.  She was always going to be on the ballot.  There is no way on Earth that a roll call vote would be suspended by executive fiat.

The only person who can decide that there won't be a roll call vote is Clinton herself.  And whether she wants to do that or not is entirely her call, and one that should be respected either way.

Those who are spouting off about the roll call vote are just looking for an excuse to attack Howard Dean, the Democratic party, and Barack Obama.   They are fantasists and conspiracy-mongers.

People who engage in nonsense like this aren't interested in democracy or helping Hillary fight her fights. They're trolls with a lot of cash to burn.


Tags: Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 199 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 8)

"They are fantasists and conspiracy-mongers."

Nah, I respect fantasists and conspiracy mongers.

Pumas, not so much.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 2)

At least they're cat lovers. Most PUMAs have over 14 cats.


by Lance Bryce on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 1)

Donna Brazile was quoted on the record in this wall street journal article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12154796 4529734509.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Hillary Clinton won a hefty 1,600 convention delegates in six months of primaries. A big question now is whether to let them vote at the Democratic convention.
High on the list of matters that Sen. Clinton and likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama are negotiating as her campaign closes down is whether and how her name is put into nomination at the August convention in Denver, said party activists in both camps.  A full roll-call vote that reminds everyone how close she came to being the nominee could reveal party rifts going into the fall campaign, they said.  But keeping her name off the roll call could anger her supporters.

It is a "bone of contention" in the negotiations between the Clinton and Obama camps, said Democratic consultant Donna Brazile. ....

Sen. Clinton's campaign office didn't answer emails seeking comment. Under party rules, Sen. Clinton's huge delegate count gives her the right to put her name into nomination. "But do you do it?" asked Ms. Brazile.  "Politically, does it heighten tensions?"

see: http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDi ary.do?diaryId=192


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 2)

Do you understand then that it's entirely her decision?

What would be the point of running ads ostensibly targeting the entire Democratic party to "allow her" to have a roll call?


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (none / 0)

Stop maligning cat owners. Please.


"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible
by BobzCat on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:52:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 2)

it would be surprising if there were no rumors like this floating around, this whole thing both from them and on here talking incessantly about that fringe group and calling anyone you don't like "PUMA'ist" or whatever is just stupid. Hell it feels like 80% of the diaries on the rec list are reactions to them instead of talking about the EO BHO should (IMHO anyway) issue upon taking office to rescind parts of the FISA BS or if it is important that his faith-based initiatives only go to groups that do not discriminate in hiring, or any of a dozen other things of real substance.

that percentage is not exact is just an expression of how it feels. any resemblance to a real number is purely accidental.


by zerosumgame on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 2)

Now let's see how long it takes for those "who shall not be named" to come out a applauding themselves for getting Howard to cave on this issue.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:39:51 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 1)

This is interesting because it was Dean's quote in the NYT that was the source of the "tinfoil theory".


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 2)

And didn't Obama say it would have to be negotiated? As if there was something to negotiate?


by Marjoriest on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 2)

and Brazille said, that it could be arranged, so that "Hillary will give a scripted concession" or words to that effect...

There was a whole, huge article on it.  In fact,  I wrote a diary on it, and Donna's quote was ON the record too.

Remember When Donna's Mama Told Her to Play by the Rules?


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes it could be arranged - with Hillary's consent (none / 0)

According to your article, its being negotiated. With whom do you think it is being negotiated? Why is it being negotiated if Hillary can simply be shut out?

I am shocked and dismayed at how weak and ineffective a politician you think Hillary is. So easily railroaded. So easily manipulated. That's not the Hillary I know and love.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha (1.20 / 10)

What a bunch of morons. These PUMAs are 99% mentally ill racists anyway.


by Lance Bryce on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:41:07 PM EST

Re: Ha ha ha ha ha ha (1.00 / 13)

Why does every thread have to have one of these 'if you don't love Obama you are a racist?' comments? It makes the bots look so STUPID.


by Marjoriest on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha ha ha ha ha ha (1.41 / 12)

No if you run with the PUMA crowd, you are running with racists and religious bigots.

Stop trying to change the subject, PUMA welcomes racists with open arms.

How does it feel?

Curious because I was raised by good moral parents who taught me nothing was ever worse than to hate someone for their race or religion.


by DemsLandslide2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha ha ha ha ha ha (2.00 / 4)

Or bullying? Or saying things that are not true? Or ignorance? Or calling people racists when you know no such thing? Delightful traits. Mama should be so proud.


by Marjoriest on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha ha ha ha ha ha (2.00 / 5)

If we see the whitey tape, we'll take it all back.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Racism. (2.00 / 6)

Ever see the white supremacist site called noquarter?  How dare anyone defend a movement that freely uses racism to smear African Americans, including Obama.

Flowbee is a proven racist.  His site is racist.  Many PUMA sites spew racist attacks against Obama.

PUMA, Noquarter, and the racism these handful of GOP smear merchants smear should not be accepted, nor defend on any progressive site.


Hillary 4 life.
by Hill4Life on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:23:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha ha ha ha ha ha (1.63 / 11)

I'd say that PUMA is only 50% racist.  And 100% stupid.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha ha ha ha ha ha (1.69 / 13)

You really shouldn't make up numbers.

According to Gallup, the PUMAs are only 48.7% racist and 89.5% stupid.  I believe the margin of error is +/- 4.5%.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One fact that cannot be argued with (2.00 / 8)

72.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

But with PUMAs they're all true


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One fact that cannot be argued with (2.00 / 3)

Exactly!  

And here's another statistic:  0% of the PUMAs are Democrats...they may have been in the past, but not any longer.  Nobody who supports McCain can even remotely claim to be a Democrat...there is no rebuttal to this point.

BTW, this statistic has a zero margin of error, with a 100% confidence level.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:20:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha ha ha ha ha ha (2.00 / 8)

Nice way to conflate claims.  There are plenty of people who have problems with Obama and who are not racists.  However, even the most cursory examination of PUMA blogs clearly shows a strong racist thread running throughout their criticisms of Obama.  Remarks such as yours are the reason Clinton lost the nomination.  People got thoroughly fed up with the hypocrisy, double standards, ever changing goalposts, selective and self-serving outrage, spin, and distortions.  


by Philoguy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just curious.... (none / 0)

Are you defensive about the racism association because you see yourself as a PUMA?


by Beren on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just curious.... (2.00 / 1)

WTF does that mean? I hate lies and ignorance and racism used as a weapon. It cheapens and diminishes real racism which we all know exists. You are making it into simply nasty name-calling. Very ugly.


by Marjoriest on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just curious.... (none / 0)

So.....you're not a proud PUMA?


by Beren on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just curious.... (none / 0)

Here's a list of folks who rated one of my comments above:

NewOaklandDem      2
Radiowalla         0
ghost 2            1
wrb                2
WashStateBlue      2
warmwaterpenguin   2
GreenHills         2
cultural worker    2
dtaylor2           1

Can you spot the PUMAs?


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just curious.... (none / 0)

A couple of those names are on my list of recognized McPUMAs.


by Beren on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:04:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He was paraphrased by a PUMA (2.00 / 7)

in that article.


by Geekesque on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:41:32 PM EST

Alright..the roll call issue is now done..put to (2.00 / 4)

rest..that's it done..onto November GE..


by louisprandtl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:45:16 PM EST

The problem is that the rules were clear (2.00 / 6)

The people floating this theory have long demonstrated that they have nothing but contempt for the rules, so they wrongly assume that everyone else does as well.


by JJE on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 04:50:47 PM EST

Dean (2.00 / 4)

It may not be Dean who is orchestrating this, but it's obvious that the Obama campaign sure as hell doesn't want the roll call vote. If Clinton "decides" not to go along with the roll call vote, IMO, her decision was made under pressure. The pressure would have to come from some other element besides the Obama campaign IMO. That would lead me to believe that the DNC was involved which would lead me to believe that Dean was involved. We shall see.

Hillary Clinton won a hefty 1,600 convention delegates in six months of primaries. A big question now is whether to let them vote at the Democratic convention. If Clinton "decides" not to go along with the roll call vote, I would say that the decision was made under pressure.

High on the list of matters that Sen. Clinton and likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama are negotiating as her campaign closes down is whether and how her name is put into nomination at the August convention in Denver, said party activists in both camps.

A full roll-call vote that reminds everyone how close she came to being the nominee could reveal party rifts going into the fall campaign, they said. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12154796 4529734509.html


by soyousay on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:22:39 PM EST

Re: Dean (2.00 / 5)

You gotta stop assuming that there is an ulterior motive behind everything. That's a big problem right there. This is only questioned by people who are trying to promote a cause with it, and they only do it so that they can make people who don't know the facts think that there's some conspiracy going on.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 2)

You gotta stop assuming that there is an ulterior motive behind everything.
Why? You certainly don't abide by this.
That's a big problem right there.
It's not for me, I live pretty good because I don't get taken by smooth talkers.
This is only questioned by people who are trying to promote a cause with it,
I'm not promoting anything. It's my opinion. Clinton will either get something positive out of this by cutting a deal or she will be forced to go along with the program through pressure. I really don't think that she will not want the roll call vote out of the kindness of her heart. Clinton is a typical politician (so is Obama) and she's already stated on her website that she is raising money for 2012.
and they only do it so that they can make people who don't know the facts think that there's some conspiracy going on.
That's quite a generalization you have going on there. You know, Obama non-supporters don't all think alike :-/


by soyousay on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (1.75 / 4)

Actually they do all think alike as proven by the fact that you are putting forth your own conspiracy theories.  Just because it's tweaked to appear different doesn't mean that it is.  It's paranoid, hysterical and more than a little silly.


by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 1)

We need to flood her site with reality.

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDi ary.do?diaryId=278

They are the ones acting like a cult . . . that i sbeing paid with a McCain banner ad.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (none / 0)

I just read their article about the Denver group ad.  How absurdly hypocritical and undignified.  They claim that the nomination was stolen from Hillary through misogyny in the media with complicity from the DNC.  Forget the fact that the nomination wasn't hers to begin with.  

Now they literally want to steal the nomination from Obama and the 60% of Democrats who are excited about the nominee.  I know it's just a fairytale but it's still offensive, especially coming from ex-members of this site.


by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:29:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 1)

They refuse to accept the fact that Hillary lost.  

She ran a hard campaign that took a nasty turn towards the end.  By continuing in that nasty vein the remaining zealots will defeat themselves - just like Karl Rove and the Republican Party.  

The difference is that the Democrats will not allow the  rabid fanatics to run the party or the country.


by Susan from 29 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:12:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 3)

That would be nice, but unfortunately they delete comments and diaries that don't agree with their positions.  Like FOX "news" viewers, they have created a self-reinforcing, self-enclosed information bubble where distortions become fact and where they all work together to stoke their collective outrage over extremely small, non-issues.  For example, I was extremely amused the other day to read handsomegentleman here claim that he could never vote for Obama due to the Annie Oakley comment and the JZ brushing of the shoulder gag.  If this is the worst that one can evoke, one wonders how such a person is able to function in the world at all.  Moreover, one wonders at the jaw dropping hypocrisy of someone who gets bent out of shape by such campaign antics, while not getting upset by the racist dog whistles from the Clinton camp during the campaign, the exploitation of the bitter remark, the suggestion that McCain is more qualified, etc.  These people are thoroughly hypocritical and genuinely twisted.


by Philoguy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 2)

Some of my comments on there were deleted, but many other subtle ones have remained.

I avoid Obama comments, and stick with anti-McCain ones . . . that really piss off the GOP troll/leaches.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (none / 0)

Really?  I had a post there that was just a list of McCain's stated positions, about eight items long, and it was deleted.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (none / 0)

I guess Alegre is exposed not only as a sore loser, but a total hypocrite. She would whine here about how she was marginalized on MYDD, and how she appreciated the open dialog on MYDD, but she refuses to tolerate dissenting comments on her blog.


by Pravin on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 1)

That is true of almost all of the rabid Clinton fanatic sites.  They certainly don't want reality intruding into the fantasies.


by Susan from 29 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (none / 0)

That is kind of sad to see, I didn't know just how far off the deep end she had really gone.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 1)

Actually they do all think alike as proven by the fact that you are putting forth your own conspiracy theories.
Actually, these are possible outcomes. One of them will happen...that's a fact. Your rhetoric/rant is just your opinion.


by soyousay on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 3)

dude, there will be a roll call vote and Obama will still be the nominee.  Perhaps he asked that she remove her name but he certainly isn't forcing anything.  No matter how much you'd like that to be true it just isn't.  So you can stop thinking everyone is out to get you or Hillary.

No one is trying to keep the roll call vote from happening because it doesn't change the outcome anyway.  That's just logic.  And the only reason the PUMA's think it's trying to be stopped is because they think they can steal the election.  It's funny that it's always the ones with nefarious intent who claim that others are out to get them.  Cynism at it's finest is what drives and justifies their actions.


by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (none / 0)

dude
Heh, tell me, are you old enough to vote?
will be a roll call vote and Obama will still be the nominee.
and who's arguing with this?
Perhaps he asked that she remove her name but he certainly isn't forcing anything.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not an insider like you, I don't know. :D
No matter how much you'd like that to be true it just isn't.
I could care less either way but I'm not naive like you are.
So you can stop thinking everyone is out to get you or Hillary.
Where did I say everybody is out to get Hillary?


by soyousay on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:55:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 1)

Yes, I'm naive because I didn't develop any nonsensical conspiracy theories.  I get it.  I'm naive because Obama is keeping Hillary from the roll call vote, because...well that I don't know.  I think you'll have to fill me in on his motivations.  Unless he fears a plan to steal the nomination, I don't see a reason for flexing his political muscle on this one.  Except maybe that it would helpt to fit him into one of PUMA's most prevailing conspiracy theories.

Who's arguing with Obama being the nominee?  Just the PUMA's.  I'm certain I don't have to tell you the reason why they're interested in the roll call vote.  It's the same reason the Denver Group posted their ad in the congressional quarterly.

And you didn't have to say it.  I was around during the primaries and I read your comments and diaries.


by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (none / 0)

If you are, as you say, indifferent to it, then why are you commenting?  That's the equivalent to me going and commenting on a Hannah Montana site and saying "Well...I really don't like or dislike her.  I just like to come here and make comments to that effect."  Seriously?  You come here to make comments on something you don't care about?  That's either the most blatant lie ever or you really need to get out more.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:03:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Correction (none / 0)

Correction: The last sentence from the first paragraph in the quote was pasted by accident. That's my opinion and it is NOT part of the article.


by soyousay on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 4)

A roll call vote will remind the nation of two things.

1. Our Party had a fierce Primary between a woman and a bi-racial(black)man.

2. The candidate who raised the most money and had a better plan to win the nomination.. won.


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (2.00 / 2)

For a long time I thought this was a wild rumor because I could not imagine the DNC would attempt to further degrade the process. It seems I was wrong.

It is also interesting Dean would finally answer this question today when the Denver Group is running its second ad on this subject in the Congressional Quarterly Weekly.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (none / 0)

ZOMG you figured it out!

PUMA actually matters!


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah the claim (2.00 / 1)

Well that didn't take long. The first hint that PUMA aka Denver Group is the reason Dean made the announcement.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (1.50 / 2)

Soyouday, one of the biggest deadender PUMA's is now back here once again to do nothing but cause divisions.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Never go there (2.00 / 2)

An assumption on your part. You must believe in conspiracies.


by soyousay on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never go there (2.00 / 4)

Wow, that was a really awesome "I know you are but what am I" argument.  Can I expect to see a shot poem about London, France, and undergarments next?


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never go there (none / 0)

Nah, something about rubber and glue comes next I believe.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:04:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never go there (none / 0)

"I know you are but what am I"
You are ridiculous, IMO.


by soyousay on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean (none / 0)

Yup. Always predictable commentary


by mikeinsf on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 10)

NO MORE PUMA DIARIES! cries


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:24:06 PM EST

There are lots of "PUMAs"... (2.00 / 5)

...that will end up voting for Obama. Given the chance, common sense will override emotion and any sense of loss or disrespect, if we allow that to occur, naturally.

However, as long as provocateurs such as this diarist (the headline's telegraphing what would otherwise be a reasonably fair diary) and many of the commenters herein continue to harass them (note: I'm not a PUMA), they will reap what they sow.

Diaries like this and many others similar to it have got to stop! These diaries are self-defeating and highlight a very small faction of this party that would otherwise be marginalized by their own dwindling membership.

Again: There are many self-described PUMAs that will, eventually, vote for our Party's nominee if we just stop putting fuel on that fire with diary headlines such as this! (And, commenters stoking this hatred, like some of those commenting herein, too.)


by bobswern on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are lots of "PUMAs"... (2.00 / 2)

I agree with you.  We could all do a better job at not being so infammatory.  But they make so so hard not to give them a hard time; I will try to ignore them and/or take them at face value.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are lots of "PUMAs"... (2.00 / 3)

Bob, so basically you mean six of the ten PUMAS will vote for Obama?  These people are entirely irrelevant and we can do without them.  That irrelevancy, if anything, is reason enough to cease with the PUMA diaries.


by Philoguy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are lots of "PUMAs"... (2.00 / 5)

Hey, Trixta told me there were like 2.5 million Pumas.

Of course, 2,499,995 of them were Trixta's sockepuppets, but it sure is an impressive number.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Basic facts.... (2.00 / 3)

...are that roughly 80% of all registered Dems support Barack Obama based upon a variety of polls, etc., etc.

This is just about precisely where registered Dem support has been for most of the recent Dem nominees for the past 16+ years, if not farther back than that.

At this point in the game, this entire PUMA matter is as much a byproduct of hardcore Obama supporters as it is of the self-described PUMA folks, themselves!

Today, when self-styled Obama supporters highlight PUMAs in their blogging, they're doing more to support and validate the PUMA movement than not.

Get a freakin' clue! STFU!  


by bobswern on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Basic facts.... (2.00 / 2)

I totally agree.

Although let's be frank; we could shut up about it tomorrow and FOX would still milk it for all it's worth.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Basic facts.... (none / 0)

Yup, there are only eight democrats who are pissed about Obama's dirty tricks in the campaign.

Only eight of us.  So why worry?  

I'm voting Nader, so that just leaves seven to worry about.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Basic facts.... (none / 0)

Nader doesn't stand for anything except Nader.

Vote for McKinney.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:56:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, the July 15th Quinnipiac poll (2.00 / 2)

has Obama with 84% of the Dem vote, with just 8% going to McCain. McCain, meanwhile, is losing 10% of his vote to Democrats.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele aseID=1192


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are lots of "PUMAs"... (none / 0)

What is a "sockepuppet"?


by trixta on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:12:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, let's see...the definition... (2.00 / 2)

...of a "sockepuppet" would be....uh....when you're in Japan and you don't know how to spell...and, uh...there's a puppeteer who's had too much rice wine...and they still go on with the performance...

...the correct spelling is "sakepuppet"...

...yeah, that's it!


by bobswern on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are lots of "PUMAs"... (none / 0)

A sockpuppet is someone who disagrees with Obama.  There is only one actual person who disagrees, and the rest of the dissenters are actually that same person using different handles.

For instance, I don't really exist, I'm just alive and kicking's sockpuppet.

Or so I've been told.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:59:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are lots of "PUMAs"... (none / 0)

Oh, we are sure you exist.

Most Obama supporters are pramaticist, and hoping you are a figment of our imagination is too unrealistic.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (1.66 / 3)

Those who are spouting off about the roll call vote are just looking for an excuse to attack Howard Dean, the Democratic party, and Barack Obama.   They are fantasists and conspiracy-mongers.

And DINO's, and ditto-heads, and hate-mongers, and racists, etc.

Whatever they are, they certainly aren't Progressives and/or Democrats.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:28:45 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 4)

I suggest that folks visit
http://www.pollster.com/

Check out what is happening in the Presidential race in States once written off.

Check out what is happening in Senate races..that weree once written off..

"Every district, every State" Dr. Howard Dean 2005


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:49:09 PM EST

So what do you think will come of this... (none / 0)

This has been one of the staple viewpoints of all the PUMA sites, from the most reasonable to the most crazed alike.

My guess is they won't give up on the idea that someone wants to keep Hillary from the roll call vote.  They will either ignore this story altogether or they will put all the blame entirely on Obama.  He of course, won't respond to their wack job allegations so they can continue to force the meme for as long as they'd like.


by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:00:16 PM EST

Re: So what do you think will come of this... (2.00 / 1)

Some people form an opinion based on facts; some form an opinion first and then look for facts to justify them.  The PUMAs are the latter.  They'll make up some crazy new conspiracy based on no evidence.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for this diary, Geek. I can't (2.00 / 4)

tell you how fed up I am with this "PUMA" crap. When we should be focusing ALL of our energy on defeating John McCain it is tragic that we have to expend even one single photon engaging this "movement." Obama, imperfect though he may be, is our nominee. Period. End of story. Seriously, any Democrat who can't find it within themselves to support our party's nominee needs to seriously start thinking of another party that may be better suited to their needs. This needs to end. Enough is enough.


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (none / 0)

I think PUMAs are cats.  Isn't PUMA a species of cat?  Well these PUMAs are very catty.


by Spanky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (none / 0)

No, they are the most bad ass line of shoes ever made...oh and killer track jackets too.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Geek, take the word PUMA out of the heading, (2.00 / 4)

and I'll rec the diary.  I won't recommend any diaries pro or con that have PUMA in the title.


by Dumbo on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:26:48 PM EST

If Dean can provide some evidence (2.00 / 2)

to back up his assertion, I'll believe him.

Shouldn't be too hard to prove.  


by Betsy McCall on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:42:54 PM EST

Re: If Dean can provide some evidence (2.00 / 2)

How can it be proved other than the roll call vote will happen as was always planned?


by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Many scenarios have been proposed (2.00 / 2)

by Dean and other Dem leaders that don't involve Clinton's name in a full roll call vote.

Put it in writing in the schedule for the Convention and make it public.  Its pretty simple.


by Betsy McCall on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:45:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Many scenarios have been proposed (2.00 / 3)

If Dean can provide some evidence (none / 0)

to back up his assertion, I'll believe him.

Shouldn't be too hard to prove.  

And you don't have to provide any evidence?  Why should anyone take your claims seriously?


by Susan from 29 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can't prove a negative (2.00 / 2)

Since I'm not on the scheduling or convention rules committee I don't have any control over the process. But Dean and Brazile do, so it shouldn't be to difficult for them to back up their words with some proof.


by Betsy McCall on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't prove a negative (2.00 / 5)

The rules are the rules.  If you have evidence that they will not be applied show it.

If you don't then what you have is a smear campaign.  You are accusing people of breaking the rules without any evidence to support it.


by Susan from 29 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are many rules (2.00 / 1)

that provide for many different scenarios. Dean was shading the truth a little bit.

Brazile has said Clinton's status at the Convention is being "negotiated".  If what Dean says is true, he needs to back it up with proof.

Dean has been a great disappointment.  I was a big supporter of his in 2004 and pushed hard for him to become DNC chair.  But he's turned into a DC insider just like the rest. He let Pelosi and Reid support Bush and embarrass Dems in Congress, then later made every effort to subvert a fair primary.

If nothing else comes out of this election, we should try to get a new chair for DNC.  


by Betsy McCall on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:02:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are many rules (none / 0)

Lets see, huge Dem gains in '06. Check.

Field operations in all 50 states. Check.

A Nationwide Voter Registration Drive unlike the DNC has ever seen. Check.

A DNC Rules Meeting that pleased both sides and that both sides reps voted for. Check.

Yep, real disappointment there.


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:02:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are many rules (none / 0)

"If nothing else comes out of this election, we should try to get a new chair for DNC."

Is today opposite day?


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are many rules (none / 0)

The rules are printed and published.   Dean hasn't shaded anything.  I have no idea why you are dragging Donna Brazille's name into a discussion of what the chairman of the DNC has announced and using it to suggest he is lying.  Except that it allows you to cloud the issue with a little lying and shading of your own.

Dean is neither lying nor shading the truth.  The rules of the nominating procedure are clear and allow no room for shadows.

Hillary Clinton's name will be put into nomination for the candidacy of the Presidency of the United States UNLESS she asks to have it removed.

Until that happens, you are frankly, blowing smoke.


by Susan from 29 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, the ones making the accusation (2.00 / 7)

are the ones who need to provide evidence.


by Angry White Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Dean can provide some evidence (1.87 / 8)

No Betsy, here is what is REALLY going to happen.

The scheduling committee will publish the agenda, including the roll call vote.

Everyone, Dean, Pelosi, etc, will pretend that Senator Clinton's name is to be place into nomination.

THEN at the very minute it's supposed to start, Michelle and a band of Angela Davis look-alikes will leap on the podium, AK-47's blazing, and threaten to cap anyone that votes for Senator Clinton!!!

Because, as we all know, Obama, his campaign, Dean, Pelosi, EVERYONE of the DNC gets up every morning and spends 100% of their time figuring out how to insult Bill and Hillary.

Because they are self-deafing morons who want to lose the election.

Oh, wait, that's wrong; that's your crew at NoQuarters that I just described, isn't it?


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Has the scheduling committee published the agenda? (2.00 / 2)

If it specifically states her name will be placed in nomination and a full roll call vote will be taken, then that's ok with me.

Got a link?  No?

I hope you enjoy your time at No Quarter.  I don't read it, but I'm glad you do.


by Betsy McCall on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're the paranoid, not me (none / 0)

So, you want the committee to SPECIFICALLY mention that Senator Clinton's name when it publishes the agenda?

Any thing else that is neccessary to lower your paranoia that the DNC is "out to get the Clintons."

My take is, if you wake up and spend time fretting about this, you won't believe anything they publish anyway.

"oh, SURE they put her name there, but, they can just change at the last minute."


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:06:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Dean can provide some evidence (2.00 / 1)

People who start conspiracy rumors are the ones that must prove those rumors true.  That's like me saying that the government can't provide evidence that it didn't intentionally cause 9/11.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ya' gotta wonder (2.00 / 2)

at the ignorance of the Democratic Party Nominating Convention rules by the originators and those who perpetuate these stupid rumors.  And at those who believe them.

Has no one ever seen a Party Convention on television?  For those who haven't, the rules are available on the DNC website.

But, just like those who believe that Obama is a Muslim, people do tend to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the facts are.


by Susan from 29 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:50:03 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean debunks PUMA tinfoil theory (2.00 / 2)

then you're talking about Donna, who's said it's under negotiation? Do Donna and Howard talk?  Is there some communication problem we just found out about? This could have been put to rest long ago, if Hillary's name is there and she could theoretically win the nom in Denver, that's all that matters. No one expects that will happen, but it has to be possible or it looks like a fix.  

Thanks for sharing, I hope this gets posted all over, and that Donna reads it. I wrote to her and asked, and she didn't write back, nor has she retracted her 'under negotiation,' maybe but only if Hillary makes a prior agreement that the vote is only cosmetic and can't change the outcome.  

anyone know any more about Donna and why she made her statements?  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:52:46 PM EST

It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

Why?  The nomination is already determined for all practical purposes.  Why does a ceremonial roll call matter if "no one expects that [Clinton's nomination] will happen"?


by JJE on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (2.00 / 1)

the rules this diary cites are clear, it's a real vote, not just for show. That makes it theoretically possible that enough super's could switch to her and that she could thus win. That has to stay a possibility for it to be fair.  If it has to be fixed in advance so that can't happen or they won't let her name be on the ballot, then what Howard is saying isn't what it seems to be.  Make sense?  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (2.00 / 1)

Yes, it is a real vote.  It will really show that the Democratic party has selected Barack Obama as its candidate.  

Deal with it.


by Susan from 29 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (2.00 / 2)

I don't have a problem with that. needs to be a real vote, that's all. that is what will bring unity, having a real vote.  People will have to stand up and say who they're voting for, in the sunlight, and then I can deal with it fine.  I'd vote for him anyway, but this way I'll be glad about it, because it will be democracy and not some insider deal that has to stay hidden. If it were the other way round, wouldn't it be the same for you?  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:50:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (1.00 / 1)

Dixiecrats don't want unity, your group is called Party Unity My Ass.  You want to be placated, pacified, and kneeled to.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (2.00 / 2)

now why would you want to say that to a person who admits she'd vote for him anyway and be glad about it when he really wins it in Denver?  Are you a disunity activist?  (strange)


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

Maybe its just being a life long Rangers fan and knowing when my team has lost that leaves me unable to fathom why you guys continue on.


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

and then you project ugly thoughts onto anyone you can't understand? interesting.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

I don't understand the implication that there is an insider fix.  The pledged delegates were won during the primary elections and caucuses.  The superdelegates have announced who they will vote for. The roll call will only reveal state totals, not individuals, so people will not be standing up and saying who they're voting for, they never have.

If my candidate lost, which Edwards did, I would look at the remaining choices and pick one, which I did.


by Susan from 29 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (2.00 / 1)

There is a lack of trust because of what happened on May 31. That was a fix - so why should we believe that the convention will be fair?


by Marjoriest on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

Yes, it was fixed by member of the Clinton campaign, including Howard Ickes, and other people in the Democratic party in 2007.

Luckily, it made no difference.  If you go with what Ickes voted for and strip both states entirely, Obama wins.  If you seat both delegations in full, Obama still wins.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

The convention isn't about fair or not fair.  It isn't about deciding on a candidate, and hasn't been for some years now.  It's about doing a four-day infomercial for the candidate we know in advance is the nominee.  

It isn't as if the convention is a game whose outcome hasn't been decided or isn't known in advance; we know who the nominee is going to be.  The DNC operations have been transferred to his headquarters.  All the other candidates in the race (except Gravel) have endorsed him.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

there are rules, they should be followed, Donna's mama taught her to play by the rules, that means no fix, fair vote, one is the favorite, the presumptive nominee, the other hasn't lost yet.  when she loses at the convention it will be fair, and then we'll see some party unity. If there is a fix, then I don't think there can be party unity.  Most of us who vote will vote for Barack, but we won't again donate to the party and we'll be looking around for a place to put our dreams and our energy (and our monthly dues).  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

What the hell are you talking about?

Of course it will be a real vote. Real delegates will vote just like they always do.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

not paying attention? The big bad rumor came from Donna Brazille, who claims there must be a negotiated settlement before the convention and that Hillary's name will be on the ballot only if she agrees before hand that she's lost and he's won, so the vote will be a show vote. Now Howard is contradicting Donna and blaming it on nobodies.  Weird?  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (none / 0)

It is theoretically possible I could win the Senate race in MN via write in as well.  Can I count on your support?


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like a fix? (2.00 / 1)

how so, is your name on the ballot?  Are you legally qualified to win?  No super votes are binding until Denver. any supers can change their minds and vote for either in Denver. In theory she can win, and she can also win in practical terms, it's just su