An Astroturfing Approach To Catching a P.U.M.A from Team Obama…

Oh. My. God.

This reads like the Scientology manual. Obama (aided by his media minions) seems to me to have declared “fair game” on the people speaking out against him. What happens to those that doubted if the One becomes president? Will freedom of speech have a place in the Obama regime? Will Praetor Obama and the Republic of the DNC allow for discontent, or even questions?

Seriously, Obama is getting scarier by the hour…Before now it was kind of funny. It just seemed too ridiculous. I’m not laughing anymore.

Exactly PUMA Pundit – these tactics are not mention on just one Obama related blogger page – but quite a few.

Where is Mangelo – I need to hear her rhetoric one more time – where is TmCm or Matt – don’t they realize we need to hear more.

I’m still not sure about “just an observer”.

Roguetrekker – Couldn’t agree more. They are sending this out – because Team Obama and the trolls are seriously worried….and they should be!

We march on!

While that is fairly frightening – Obama’s whole attitude about shutting down the opposition – it is nice to be “feared”. I am glad to see that PUMA is apparently a force to be reckoned with. We will get our party back yet!

This voice needs to get louder. We are running out of time.

What more can we do? Open to suggestions.

sparky – what’s up with calling me out?! i have been nothing but cordial and engaged in my comments. i am not a PUMA, but that doesn’t mean that i’m here to convince anyone about obama. i recognize this is a PUMA site, so i’m not foolish enough to come here and start trying to convert people. please re-read my posts and note that i am not here to spout rhetoric. on the other hand, i’m not here to reinforce the PUMA message, but nor am i here to ridicule or belittle anyone’s position. i’m just here for the exchange and to learn. i’ve had great exchanges with mbander, one4justice, you (sparky), and others on this page.

regarding the linked article and posted excerpts, i don’t find it particularly surprising or frightening. campaigns regularly ask people to go out of their way to speak to their friends about their candidate. don’t you think that mccain’s camp is doing the same thing? for his sake, i sure hope so!

campaigns always have talking points – a lot of people are uncomfortable engaging others in political discourse, so campaigns provide things to talk about. this is why campaigns have outreach and communications staff.

wouldn’t it be bad strategy for both mccain and obama to NOT court hillary clinton supporters? i understand that the majority of contributors to this site are firmly anti-obama, but that doesn’t mean that all PUMAs feel the exact same way. if you agree that PUMAs share a common streak of independent-minded voting preferences, then that makes PUMAs fair game for all the candidates (in alphabetical order): barr, mccain, nader (trying not to laugh), and obama.

considering the content of the memo/article, i’d be more inclined to agree with mbander’s closing thought regarding the potential influence of PUMAs. shouldn’t it be a good thing that campaigns are courting PUMAs? sure, you don’t like obama, and i agree that some of the talking points are lame and petty. are they dangerous though? i guess the story to me, then, is that PUMAs can influence the election, not that obama’s campaign is dangerous or frightening.

observer,

Courting PUMA’s?

This is courting? “showing you’ve come around to respecting Hillary may ease their hurt enough to do the trick. (Even if you don’t mean it. This is politics).”

Really… it doesn’t surprise me that the sexist Obozo would think of this for it is the politcal equivalent of “tell her you love her, get what you want from her, and deal with the pregnancy later”.

If Obozo cared about our issues he would have already addressed them… it’s only the Stepford women who are submitting to the DNC elite who are selling women out. Look how PATHETIC are these talking points!!

Go Sarah 2008!!!

It bothers me because Obama supporters are being encouraged to lie to try and get converts. And that’s just what Obama does—-he lies to try and get people to vote for him. That’s the reason I’m so repulsed by him and it’s the reason I’m voting McCain, even though I’m Democrat and don’t really like McCain either. I don’t believe anything that Obama has to say. His recruitment process is just one more bit of proof at how his strategy is to lie, and get his supporters to lie, to get elected. Very Machiavellian and definitely not for me.

I, personally, would prefer that they praise Obama. Because all I hear is hate and vitriol aimed at the Republican candidates. I still, to this day, after the primaries and weeks of the general election campaign, have not heard of one, single act or accomplishment of Senator Obama in his entire term of public service (that he actually did on his own and that was not borrowed, loaned or stolen from someone else) that recommends him for the job of President of the United States.

Not based on what he says because, if you only run that tape forward (which is what the media is doing) and never ask him to account for what he says (the Banking Committee is “his committee” — he’s not even a member of the Banking Committee — and that was just today’s latest whopper), you’ll spin in circles because what he says changes by the day and hour.

I’m talking about an accomplishment. Anything. He’s “experienced” in foreign policy? What is the meaning of the word “experienced”? Being born in Hawaii? That’s not a foreign country, though it’s a long flight to get there. Traveling to other countries as a young man? Then every backpacker on break between college and grad school is qualified and has foreign policy “experience.”

Economic issues? He’s not even on committees that deal with economic policy. Where has his expertise come from? Being a lawyer? Sort of a lawyer, for a while? I’m a lawyer and I am baffled by how the international monetary system works. They don’t teach that in law school.

It still astounds me that a man who has done literally nothing in his entire public career can be hoisted onto the shoulders of the masses and carried along in a coronation parade to be their anointed leader. This is one of the most upside down logical pretzels the American public has come up with in a long time.

So, hey, please, if you want to entice HRC supporters to come over, you don’t have to bake cookies or pretend you really liked Hillary while holding your nose.

Just focus on your own candidate and give me one good reason (without mentioning any other candidate, whether or not you believe they’re the incarnation of the Devil on earth) to vote for him. Because he’s a born leader?

Based on what?

I think it is great to see how politics is really played. Befriend your enemies then blow them off in the end. I think it is great to finally be part of a group that shows it has power. The Obama supporters really won’t ease the hurt we feel about Hillary. Remember, at his rally when he mentioned Hillary’s name, they booed and he had to play devil’s advocate and commend her for her race. McCain did not denouce one of his supporters use for the word B====h. He danced around it but did not mention that it was sexist, nor did he say, please do not refer to Senator Clinton like that in my presence. Yet, he picks a woman who he thinks will gain PUMA supporters. My decision is to either not vote or write Hillary in. Then when problems get bad and throw blame, I can wear my “Don’t Blame Me I Voted for Hillary” button. A big problem I have when it comes to Obama is the Kennedy comparisions. He is NO JFK and Michelle is certainly NOT JACKIE. The remind me nothing of the Kennedys. Obama is a smooth talker who thinks people will buy into his BS like Sarah Palin. Kennedy put his words into action, Obama has been in the senate two years and finally speaking up. Hillary tried to get things done, but was shot down by a republican controled congress. Hillary stil can’t get things done due to people believing a smooth talker with no real plans to act.

WasHRCnowPalin:
So right! If this is courting, so was Henry VIII’s Rough Wooing.

IndieDogg:
Very good points. In my discussions with O supporters they rarely can site a legitimate accomplishment that was all Obama. From what I have seen in the debate McCain came out with ideas and solutions to problems (Whether they will work is still to be decided) but he has idea’s built on experience. Obama’s rebuttals were, “That won’t work.” and various incarnations of the same. Foreign policy? Obama: “McCain’s idea’s won’t work.” Energy? “McCain’s idea’s won’t work.” Economy? “This meeting in Washington was all my idea…and McCain’s idea’s won’t work.”

Just once I’d like to see what he intendeds to do about these issues. Though, I feel bound to say that even if he does come up with something, there is every chance he will change, alter, “clarify”, or out right denounce it by the end of the day.

Hum. How to court a Puma vote? Through hypocrisy? Through pandering? By lying? By hypnosis? Hum. “They” must have us confused with the “Obot cult.” Haven’t they realized yet that we are more principled, more loyal, and more intelligent? Haven’t they yet realized that we value “principle above party’? Haven’t they yet realized that we are “mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore”?

OMG! Take away our votes. Take away our voices. Take away the superdelegates for whom we voted. Take our money. Insult our constituencies. Yes! I’m sure this will “persuade” us to fall in line! If that all doesn’t work, just threaten us with Roe vs. Wade. Call us names such as “racist” and “whiner.” Tell us that the man who was never in charge of a single, solitary budget, not even in a small town of 100 is qualified to direct and save our economy.

The hype is beyond comprehension. It is beyond imagination. It is beyond disbelief.

Read my lips, Obamots: Not in your wildest imagination, not in your wildest dreams, will we ever be “persuaded” to vote for the likes of you! You are nothing but a puppet, propped up by the DNC, propelled by the “mafia” of Chicago politics. You are not worthy of our vote. You are not worthy of our notice. Your “police tactics” politics are a “black” stain on the thread of this democracy, which itself was founded on freedom of speech and the belief in liberty. You would take away both just to “force your will” on the Democratic voters of this party, but we say, and always will, “NO DEAL!” To get respect in this world, you have to give it, and you haven’t given any respect to Hillary, nor to her 18 million voters.

You did not “need” her. You did not “need” us. Good! So…get this. WE do not NEED YOU!

You know Anne Marie – you’re getting a little sassy lately – by the way – Love it!!!

That’s it Sassy PUMAs – we march on!!!

You know this has been bothering me for a while but I wasn’t sure how to word it, so I’m going to put the idea out there and trust my fellow Pumas to refine it,
Uneducated: Andrea Mitchell apparently said on a news broadcast that the only Hillary voters that aren’t toeing the party line are uneducated; The video has been taken down from You Tube; this was the same comment made about Hillary’s voters in general during the primaries.
My gut reaction to that is to display my degrees and those of my children, including the one that got a degree from Harvard but then I realize how many really smart people are uneducated. We should never equate uneducated with dumb.
People are unable to get through high school or college for many reasons. I would venture that most of them have had to face life with some challenges such as poverty, racism or a family history of mental illness or addiction; many are children that are abused or neglected. If you have to spend your life just trying to survive, book learning takes the backseat. However, that doesn’t mean you don’t know things or that you don’t have incredible things to add to society. Where would we be without our blue collar friends? The mechanic, the nurses aid, the factory worker…?

These comments are just another notch on Obama’s snob belt. The people he is calling uneducated and looking down on are the very ones for whom he claims to be the champion; Last stats I could find (2005) showed that 11% of blacks had 4 year degrees.Is the O campaign also attempting to insult the 8 out of 9 uneducated Black people that are voting for him?

As for dumb. IQ is an average; 1/2 the population by definition is dumb if you look at it that way. Maybe we should just makes a deal with Obama; he takes all the votes of people with above average IQ’s and with college degrees and McCain takes everybody else; Guess who wins?

Watch and pass along!

Mr. Obama: Who Are You?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16aBNduAyQ4

I agree with you Badlybehaved. I am a political science major in college and I do feel insulted by the comments that I am uneducated for still supporting Hillary. What does education have to do with anything. The issue is experiance vs. inexperiance. One can be educated but not qualified for a job especially one that deals with 300 million americans. The people are the ones in charge of the government, after all, the people hire and fire the “employees” by voting. No one wants to talk about the real problem they have with Hillary and that is she is a woman and she has Bill. The democrats did all they could to keep Bill out of the White House, then get mad at the PUMAs for not jumping on board. One has to admit Bill did one heck of a job while president, although I still think Hillary ran the country as well. Hillary is very education and she had turned words into action. The Obama supporters questions Hillarys experiance as being the wife of a president. As First Lady, Hillary got to meet forgein heads of state.

I am tired of the insults and tactics used to get the PUMAs on their side. That makes me respect them less. They should respect why we are mad, upset but instead degrade and insult us. I am sure the Obama campaign is ticked off at Hillary for not putting an end to her PUMAs. Admendment 1 gives us the freedom of speech and right to assemble. Also, let’s put an end to the statements that we can’t vote for Hillary in a general election. I have been told that she withdrew from the race and therefor not eligible. Hillary only SUSPENDED her campaign she never officially withdrew completely still making herself part of this presidental race. Hillary would win if people knew about that. After all, there are still voters on the edge, not voting, ect. This could be our big chance to get Hillary elected.

PUMAs are educated. PUMAs have brains. I just don’t like my choices for president and McCain’s girl is not Hillary! If McCain really tried to get the PUMA voters by picking a woman who is the complete opposite of Hillary, he had shown some really bad judgement.

I have to disagree about John McCain showing bad judgment. Here’s why; Obama has between 90% and 95% of the Black vote yet no one is calling them uneducated; There is an understanding that all of Obama’s fault are to be overlooked because Black people, even the uneducated ones understand the importance of their children seeing that a Black man can be president. It doesn’t matter that he is Black only because of the color of his skin. It doesn’t matter that he does not share their cultural experiences; it does not even matter that he has treated Blacks shoddily (Grove Parc Chicago).
So here we have it that it’s OK for someone to vote for Obama because of his skin color but his campaign has taken it further and told his supporters that anyone who is not voting for him is a racist. To me, this is a tool he has used to keep people from looking too deeply into his dealing with Ayers and ACORN and Grove Parc.I have a feeling that he has used this tool before; He even takes it one step further and acts as though anyone with legitimate questions about his background doesn’t deserve an answer. Like he should get a pass. In a sense this becomes Affirmative Action; he gets to be president because he is 1/2 Black.
We should look past his history if we dare to look at it at all.

Gender on the other hand is not like race: women are truly different not just our bodies but our brains; women have more in common with one another than they do with men; Hillary was clearly the most qualified person in the race, hands down. She happened to be a woman and therefore vulnerable to a special kind of attack reserved for women. Obama would not be the candidate if it weren’t for the sexism not only by the media but by society in general. For instance, those 11% of Blacks with a degree that are male still make more money than women (Black or White) with a degree. All women in all societies around the world experience discrimination to varying degrees.
I look a Sarah Palin, while not a woman I agree with on everything but as someone more like me than anyone else in the race. Hillary was the most qualified; she was discriminated against because she was a woman. So sexism is the enemy here. Voting for Sarah Palin will shout that to the rafters and any political party of the future tempted to keep a qualified woman (like Hillary) off the ticket, will do so at their own peril. Not to mention all those little girls out there that need to see women in positions of power. Blacks are about 12% of the population, women over 50%. I believe that not voting for a woman is truly against our self-interest.
By the way the US ranks 69th in the world for having women in the higher levels of government.

badlybehaved – interesting perspective. First of all not all of Hillary’s supports are white females. We come from all races, genders and demographics. Some of us are educated (I’m getting my second degree now) and some aren’t.

Common sense plays a huge factor in the sucess of indivisuals. I have PhDs that work for me, extremely smart, not a “lick” of common sense.

Some of my technicians are not educated, and I would trust them with highly critical projects – and not the PhDs.

So there are people that are book smart and with common sense and some that dont have and the same wiht non-educated folks.

I would tend to believe that this is BO’s Elitist attitude, similar to the folks in Pennsylvania clinging to their bibles and guns.

I agree with Badlybehaved that this is a paramount women’s issue – it’s such an important battle. I have been watching for several years in shock and dismay as women’s rights revert back to the 50′s. The values of so many girls in high school have made a major step back. The goals that too many women have for themselves have reverted back. The “blonde jokes” that women repeat ad nauseum while totally ignoring their sexist significance is unbelievable. The treatment of Hillary was just the absolute last straw. I heard women say that America shouldn’t have a woman President because it would look bad to muslim countries! I read articles where Hillary wan’t the right woman to be the first President because she wasn’t “feminine” enough and “pretty” enough. What is going on in our society if such things are freely admitted and stated by professional women! I am simply appalled and this is the place to take a stand. I was asked recently if her being a woman would be enough for me to vote for the McCain*Palin ticket. That is a hypothetical question because there are many reasons to vote McCain*Palin this election. But the answer to that hypothetical question is “Yes!” and that’s the first time in my life I have advocated that a woman hold a position simply because she is a woman, but this backsliding of women’s rights must be addressed – no, it must be stopped! …and this is our best opportunity to do that.
If the concerted effort to discredit Palin by ridiculing her and making her appear an ineffective “beautiful” woman, This i

Oh, and to add. No, education does not change a person’s intelligence or understanding of issues. Neither does race, upbringing or wealth.

btw: is there a way to modify an entry after it has been sent? Thanks.

pumasympathiser- two questions for clarification:

1. i don’t understand how voting for mccain/palin will stop what you consider a backsliding of women’s rights. can you please explain?

2. how can it be that education does not change a person’s understanding of issues? it might not change one’s stance on an issue, but increased education certainly has to improve one’s understanding of that issue.

Sparky:
I know we aren’t all white women; I was reacting to the accusation made by some of or visitors that voting for Palin because she is a woman is somehow unacceptable while it is fine to vote for Obama because he is black. PUMAs are all colors; male and female; rich and poor; educated and smart in other ways or both; gay and straight, short or tall, young and old, blue eyes and brown, hazel and green. You all have a home here.

Just an Observer:
You didn’t want to talk about the kindergarten sex education but I have a perspective on it that might interest you; I used to volunteer for a rape crisis center and went into schools to do state mandated child sexual assault preventative education; back then a child who disclosed was immediately taken away from their family in order to keep them safe if the abuser was a relative living in the home and it usually is. The child was further traumatized and certainly felt that they were being punished for telling; the other thing that bothered me was that here i was going and telling little kids about sexual abuse (in an age appropriate manner) when they had very little if any understanding of sex to begin with. I was afraid that they were getting a message that sex was bad.

just_an_observer,

I know you didn’t ask me to weigh in on the education thing, but I thought I would share my feelings on it. You can have the best education in the world, but it doesn’t necessarily enhance your judgment, common sense, or even your desire to learn more about a particular issue. (Like reading beyond a bumper sticker.)

There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Only one of them can be gained by attending a university.

badlybehaved…I don’t think I worded my response correctly…I was actually agreeing with you and adding the remainning information as my response.

I am totally right behind you on yoru responses.

PUMAsympathiser – Wish I knew, I am the biggest culprit on typos – if I can only hit hte backspace key and take some of my comments back.

mbander – Exactly!

just_an_observer – it is becoming more and more obvious what side you are on. You are constantly questioning Palin and our decision to vote McCain/Palin.

I can understand you curiosity – I can’t understand you underlining pro-Obama stance and your sublimal approach to change our mind. It’s obvious that you are not on the fence….sorry, my radar is going off.

…and subliminal was spelled incorrected.

mbander – what’s happening? back into the fold, i see since when do you need a request from me to weigh in on an issue. the more the merrier, i think!

i agree that knowledge and wisdom are not the same. my point, however, still remains. increased education is good for voters to clarify their stance on issues or change their minds. after all, i think that both conservatives and liberals need to ask themselves more often, why do i believe in [insert]? there is no denying that education plays an important role in our ability to question ourselves and others.

i should also clarify that it is uncommon for pollsters to use the term ‘educated’ or ‘uneducated.’ typically, participants are distinguished by their highest level of education completed, such as high school or college. there is no doubt that these are useful distinctions for voter patterns and campaigning purposes. hillary clinton, for instance, did much better during the primaries than obama did with voters whose highest level of education is high school .

it seems that the comment that badlybehaved referenced comes from andrea mitchell during an appearance on meet the press in late august or early september in which she was answering a question about the republicans ability to get former clinton supporters to vote for the mccain/palin ticket. her response, to me, seems innocuous at best, and naive at worst. she said that “they [republicans] think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college educated, who, the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.”

badlybehaved uses the quote from andrea mitchell to conclude that “these comments are just another notch on obama’s snob belt.” what comments? shouldn’t you at least reference a single comment before giving somebody a(nother) notch on their snob belt? did you attribute the quote from andrea mitchell to obama?

just because the mccain/palin ticket may draw MORE than the “not college educated” crowd does not refute mrs mitchell’s point about the republicans’ intentions. was there some hope in the mccain campaign that they would swing some clinton supporters with the selection of palin? i sure hope so! they had damn well better thought of that! i think it is hard to claim that mccain’s selection of palin as his vp was not a political move, simply because i believe that all vp choices are politically motivated.

sparky – of course it’s more obvious which side i’m on! i stated previously that i am leaning towards obama. i have made no mystery of that fact. my intention was not to mislead anyone and i disclosed my preference with sufficient detail on more than one occasion. i’m not here to keep you from marching on or spreading the word. i’m just here listening because i’m curious.

i’m not questioning your decision to vote for mccain/palin. and i’m not trying to get you to vote for obama – directly or subliminally. the stated purpose of this website is to prevent obama from getting elected. with that in mind, i concocted a diabolical plan to take the whole site over and set you all straight. you found me out, sparky.

all joking aside, i am interested in the arguments. some of them are convincing … and others are not so convincing. in general, however, i would say that i find the arguments against obama more convincing than the arguments in favor of mccain/palin. [note, i didn't mention biden because i haven't read a reference to joe biden in the comments - not that these don't exist, i just haven't come across them while visiting this site.]

just and observer – perhaps you should succinctly define “education” as you are using it in your posts. Then, I’ll answer you question.

On the education issue, I am a well-educated professional woman, who probably has as much personal experience with issues relevant to this election as anyone. Without my experiences (or my own personal qualities that brought me to my profession) my education would be meaningless in assessing the issues and candidates in this election.

In return I’ll ask you something. I have wondered recently how anyone can be “undecided” at this point in time. Can you explain how you can possibly not have decided?

Just an Observer
You just have to go back through previous posts on this site to see how often PUMAs are called retarded or stupid.
If you did a percentage breakdown of voters as high school graduate or not and looked at race too, would the results be the same by percentage. So much of this is playing with statistics, I would appreciate it if you gave me the source of your breakdown of the demographics; The point is that what comes out of it is a sound bite. For instance, would any Obama supporter be using the term uneducated to talk about his supporters.
The term a pollster might use is irrelevant when the descriptive term used by the media and campaigns becomes uneducated, which obviously from the posts here becomes stupid or retarded to Obama’s supporters. The underlying message is, you are not smart if you don’t vote for Obama. Unless you do what Michelle and Biden say and vote for him because he is Black. I don’t talk politics with a lot of the people that I know but those that I do talk to that were for Hillary are college educated. Maybe we are all outliers?

Positive things about McCain and Palin: you have to understand that most people posting here have always been Democrats; watching the debate the other night was for me like being at a football game and cheering for the team that has always been my biggest rival. For me, McCain is the lesser of two evils.
I think that the biggest problem with George Bush had to do with character; I did not vote for him, I see the same character issues in Obama but people are so mad about Bush that they are like a pendulum swinging as far away from him as possible, politically. A person on the far right or on the far left that is without character can cause an equal amount of harm. John McCain, while not anywhere near perfect is of better character than either Obama or Bush.
Obama also lacks experience yet is so arrogant that he thinks he knows it all.
The only argument Obama makes is that McCain is George Bush and that does not stand-up to close examination; just another sound bite.

Scary about Obama is that there is such a lack of media scrutiny, for instance when Obama talked about his ‘bracelet’ the other night have you yet seen it reported that the mother who gave him the bracelet asked him not to make a campaign issue of it? His father was interviewed on public radio about it way back in March but somehow the MSM has missed it.

pumasympathiser – great question. to be clear from the outset, i’ve stated that i am leaning towards obama, but undecided. hence, your question.

4 of my reasons to remain undecided, in no particular order:
1. i live in a state where there is no doubt as to which candidate will win the electoral votes. i’m not interested in trying to sway anyone’s vote in my state, and i don’t live close enough to a border state to travel and campaign for a candidate. in 2004 i lived in a different state and i did some campaigning for john kerry locally and in a nearby state. i knew from the outset i didn’t like george bush and that i wanted to vote for the ‘other guy.’ in doing so, i made up my mind early on and decided to act on my preference. this year, i didn’t feel compelled to campaign for a candidate in the primary or in the general election. as such, i decided to use my time to learn as much about the candidates as possible before the election.

2. i wanted to wait for the VP choices. as stated previously, i am leaning towards obama. this is due in part to the relatively recent VP choices. much to the chagrin of users on this site, i will admit that i don’t love sarah palin. i do, however, understand why people like her, and i respect her for that. that doesn’t mean that i have to like her though. i don’t love joe biden, but i think he was a good VP choice for obama. remember, the VP choice is part of my (in)decision, not the final decision.

3. i want to see the debates. i like an open forum for the exchange of ideas, and the debates are a good way to see this (most of the time, i don’t think friday’s debate was a great example, but there were flashes).

4. i want to make a decision based on the entire balance of the presidential campaign – this includes the party conventions, and runs all the way through to november 4 until i punch my ticket. i am looking at things like: what types of advertisements are campaigns using, how are the campaigns treating each other, how ridiculous does each campaign sound, etc.

badlybehaved – i understand that people have come here to ridicule PUMAs and tell you that you’re stupid and retarded. at its core, i find that offensive. i promise that i would never take that approach, regardless of how vehemently i would disagree with you or anyone else on this site or elsewhere. ultimately, i find it counterproductive and narrow-minded. similarly, i think it is an abuse of the anonymity that the internet affords. people say/write whatever they want without repercussion. that is irresponsible to me.

regarding the term ‘education’ and how pollsters use it. the poll i follow closest is a joint project between yougov and the economist (www.economist.com/yougov). in the most recent poll, for instance, (dated september 15-16, 2008) they have a section which breaks down the participants’ responses as to whom they favor based on their education (go to page 31 of the linked pdf results). the breakdown is identified as:
HS less, some college, college grad, and post grad.

they also break it down by a variety of other factors. i recognize it’s just a poll. i’m not using this poll to prove anything, just to provide an example that i know of in which the education of the respondent is a category considered in the presentation of results.

i understand that a pollster’s definition is irrelevant if the term used by the media becomes ‘uneducated.’ that gets to my original point though. you referenced something that andrea mitchell said, and it appears to me that she said ‘not college educated,’ however, that is not the same as ‘uneducated’ as you claimed. in principle, i’m not disagreeing with you that the media or obama consider hillary supporters as uneducated. i’m stating that your example did not support your claim.

pumasympathiser – you stated that without your experiences (or personal qualities) that your education would be meaningless in assessing the issues and candidates in the election.

in my case, i find that my experiences and education are so closely linked that, with respect to the campaign, it would be near impossible to parse out the influence of one verses the other. it’s sort of like a chicken/egg question for me.

Well, you see I don’t understand you at all. You never once mentioned policy or idealeology, Constitution, character, or anything that I think should be significant in voting for President of the United States.

If you care about how campaigns are treating each other, I’ll point you to threats of intimidation (FCC and IRS) and of criminal prosecution for telling “lies” about Obama (I posted a link). There there is the “get in their face” directive (from Obama himself) to convince them and the condescention that is the subject of this very thread. It does NOT get worse than this – not in America.. You think I over-react to those things?! That goes back to my experiences, where people voted my name for many years at an old address and intimidated my family members to keep them from voting.

I live in a well-educated but not very intelligent state. It is a battleground state and I will attempt to pursuade anyone who will listen. I come here, in part, for ideas on how to convince people in my area. Though, the area I live in my state will most definitely go for Obama – but the state is not yet decided.

the things that you consider significant in voting for the POTUS are important to me also. but you asked, why am i still undecided, not “what do you consider important when voting for president?” there is a distinction between the two.

I did but I expected that to be for substantive reasons.

i assumed that you were questioning the circumstances that have led me to my current position of undecided. my apologies for the mix-up.

I am white male. I am not a racist but I am viewed as a racist for not liking Obama. If you don’t like Hillary or Palin, you are viewed as a sexist. I do defend Michelle Obama’s comment about bringing proud to be an American. I don’t think many people thought that they ever see such an historical election as this one. I really think that is what she meant, not being negitive as it was twisted around by the media and now viewed as unamerican. In this matter, our words weren’t twisted, PUMAs were verbally insulted and degraded. I hope to see an apology, or will have to write an article against what what was said.

PUMAs will not be backed in a corner – our voices will be heard.

clintonloyalist – this is what I have been trying to explain to the Kool-Aid drinkers – we are callled white feminist bitter hags loyal to Hillary, when we come from all races and gender – no matter what or who or where we come from – we don’t just have to look at race and genders – we are PUMAs and we are standing for a cause – Democracy!

just_an_observer,

You alluded to the fact that you consider character, ideology, policy, etc. in your choice for POTUS. How do you justify “leaning toward Obama” in light of what is known about him, i.e. Chicago style politics, his campaign finance, his shifting stance, (based on where he is appearing), his radical or crooked associations (Ayres, Rezko, Rev. Wright, ACORN, Franklin Raynes, Jim Johnson just to name a few favorites. And I am not talking rumors – just factual accusations that have been leveled at him albeit not covered by the MSM.

Just-an-observer and anyone else interested: A really informative program on caucus electioneering and voter intimidation and fraud is available on PUMA talk Radio (NO WE WON”T) there is a movie called We Will not be Silenced by G G Gaston. There is also a radio broadcast which features Gloria Allred talking about the convention. They are for Saturday and Sunday, Sept. 6th and 7th.

Clintonloyalist: If you don’t like Hillary, which Clinton are you loyal to,Bill?

mbander and badlybehaved – all I can say is EXACTLY to both you comments.

Did you know the “bailout” bill orginally had monies directed toward ACORN? Can you believe it? For once I’m glad the Republicans are holding out against them.

Hold your ground – just like we need to!

We march on….

should state both your comments….need an editor on this thing.

Thanks for the compliment, Sparky! Coming from you, it means alot.

I was thinking that when Obama loses this election, we should have one hell of a blog party and play “Dancing in the Streets,” because I know that’s exactly what I’ll be doing!

Toghether we’ll win. Together he’ll lose.

Sparky: What is great about the Acorn earmark is that by Saturday morning there was a way on line to sent letters to our law makers objecting; It may have actually worked. PUMA POWER!!!!

Pounce, pounce!!!!!

I love Hillary to pieces and wanted her for president since 2000! I was making a point of how one can be viewed as sexist if they say they didn’t like the female candidate in the race whether it is Hillary or Palin. I have been called a racist for saying negitive comments about Obama. I do apologize that the comment wasn’t clearly made.

No worries clintonloyalist – I get tongue-tied as well.

On another note PUMAs – have you noticed that the trolls haven’t been posting lately – finally – no knats to swat at……

mbander – i will respond to your question regarding my justification of leaning towards obama when i have more time. my apologies for the delay.

badlybehaved – thanks for the recommendation regarding the broadcast on caucus electioneering and voter intimidation. i will find some time to listen to it.

just_an_observer – I’m interested in knowing why you lean towards Obama. Exactly what is he offering? Are you immune to the stories discussed with his ties to Ayers, Rezko, Wright, ACORN, etc?

Do those connections not raise a red flag to you.

I am really interested to know why Obama followers will not comment on these issues.

I am really interested on your viewpoint.

just-an-observer,

I would appreciate you taking the time. I canot fathom how any thinking person (and I am giving you credit for being intelligent) can just ignore these things.

Meanwhile, fro the rest pf you who find it impossible to ignore these issues and the MSM’s deliberate attempt to conceal them may be interested in this UK article. Some fascinating points. Apparently th UK is hearing about Obama’s questionable associations through blogs like this.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2178136/subversives-for-obama.thtml

i will try to respond quickly to both sparky and mbander, mainly about obama’s ties though, rather than my stated preference for obama over mccain. before i write, i would like to point out that this forum is not designed to answer either of your questions in a comprehensive manner. with that in mind, i would appreciate it if you took the time to ask for clarification rather than attacking something i wrote or did not write. i am open to disagreement, but i would rather not use this site as a vehicle to attack anyone or be attacked. if you’ve come to this site solely to support the PUMAs, i apologize for the brief distraction while you scroll through the comments. ultimately, however, i think that the PUMA message will only be stronger if the free exchange of ideas is maintained at this site.

as i wrote before, my lean towards obama is a function of many things, many of which are pro-obama and others that are anti-mccain. boiling all of the issues down into a single post is unfair, as it will certainly not do justice to my opinions. i will respond mainly to obama’s ties to questionable figures that are regularly discussed on this site.

with regard to ayers: i have read the stories on this page and others, reviewed timelines posted on the internet, and to be honest, i cannot find a convincing argument that bill ayers and barack obama are good friends or that ayers is connected to obama’s campaign for president in a meaningful way. do they know each other? yes. that said, i don’t think that there is sufficient evidence available to prove, for instance, that obama is an operative for ayers. i’m steadfast in my belief against conspiracy theorists. my verdict: yellow flag.

with regard to wright: i think that wright is a crank. that said, i try not to judge people based on who they draw spiritual or religious advice from. my father, for instance, is a great source of religious advice for me, but we have less in common when it comes to politics. my point, then, is that politics and religion can be and often are separated. obama did all that he could do on this issue (albeit slowly and a bit clumsily) and has since distanced himself from wright. on this issue, i can understand how others would see a red flag, but i don’t. primarily because i don’t think that obama’s former association with wright will affect his ability to govern. my verdict: no flag.

with regard to rezko: based on what i understand, obama received campaign donations from rezko (and his ‘close associates’) for his illinois campaigns and rezko’s wife sold him some land next to his house. obama has since donated most of the money (last i read, was it more than half) that rezko (and his associates) gave him to charity. mrs rezko seems to have come out ahead on her sale of her property and nothing about the deal was deemed illegal. in mr rezko’s trial, obama was not implicated of any wrongdoing at the trial. the final verdict on obama’s ties to rezko are unclear, however, as rezko’s sentencing is still ongoing (scheduled for october 28) and recent reports indicate that he may be meeting with federal prosecutors to discuss a deal that would reduce his sentence. are his ties to obama more than what they seem? as of now, i don’t know. current verdict: yellow flag. final verdict: TBD.

that’s all i got for now. more later. i’m sure, however that there are enough differing viewpoints from mine that you won’t be waiting for my next post

quickly, with regard to sparky’s question, ‘why obama followers will not comment on these issues.’ firstly, i find that if you’re trying to have a discussion with someone, words matter. no one likes to be called a follower. not everyone who supports obama is a myopic follower, the same goes for those who support mccain. i doubt there is a single answer to your question. some people hate george bush so much, that they’ll vote for anybody else. some of those people have opted to vote mccain, others for obama. i’m sure there are a lot of people on both sides who would rather not comment on issues that weaken the case of their preferred candidate. or maybe people don’t care. should they? i think we can agree that they should, but that doesn’t mean they do. in other cases, i don’t think that supporters of obama are even aware of some of his connections to shady individuals.

just-an-observer,

I hope you didn’t feel I was “attacking” you when I asked how you could overlook these things. I was seriously wondering how someone could set aside these issues. I try not to belittle people for their opinions (but sometimes have been pushed to it when the name-calling is started) and I have appreciated your always civil tone, even when we disagree.

I still believe Ayres ties with Obama ran very deep. I don’t believe he has been truthful about them. Both the association and the failure to address it concerns me greatly. GIANT red flag for me.

As to what he did about Rev. Wright, he left the church when Wright became a problem to his candidacy. Until that time, he was happy to sit in the church for 20 years listening to the hate-filled crap Wright was spewing. The “crazy uncle” thing just didn’t settle it for me. HUGE red flag for me.

As to Rezko – why continue to associate with a guy like that? (And why is it OK to give back only HALF the money) This guy is a Chicago thug, part of the corrupt politics of that area. If I am to believe Obama’s politics of change, I guess this guy constantly popping up in his life, would make a person wonder. Unless by change he meant bringing Chicago politics to Washington (which he did threaten Hillary with when they were running against each other.

Also of concern is his hiring of ACORN – connected to voter fraud in several states – and his community organizer alma mater – to run a get-out-the-vote drive for him. Agin, why surround yourself with people like that – unless it is part of your ideology?

Is there a respectable person in his inner circle???

But PLEASE don’t take this personally. I do enjoy a good discussion, and appreciated your taking the time to explain your thinking on this when obviously you don’t owe me any explanation.

mbander – i’ve never got the impression that you were attacking me. i just wanted to state upfront in my post that i wasn’t looking for a fight.

thanks for your response to my post. my response to you:

ayers: as i said before, i don’t get the same feeling that you do that obama’s connections with ayers ran deep. but hey, maybe your intuition is better than mine.

rev wright: i completely understand your position. i am still a bit torn on this one, to be honest. that is a function of my own views on religion and politics.

rezko: i didn’t mean to imply that giving back half the money was OK. that was an oversight on my part. i was merely stating that obama had responded to it and taken a step to address the issue. i should say that obama should donate all of the money he received from rezko, rather than only a fraction. i think that dishonest people appear in the lives of most (or all) politicians because of the demanding fundraising efforts required on a state and federal level. in the case of obama and rezko, the current facts don’t convince me that rezko bought influence with obama or that obama did any favors for rezko.

ACORN: frankly, i don’t know enough about ACORN or obama’s connections to the organization to respond to your comment, so i will wait until i have time to learn and read more about the issues you raised.

Just_an_observer – what about his ties to the former Freddie Mac -Fannie Mae Execs that are now part of his current Campaign team.

Still dont’ see a patter here?

ACORN:

What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.

This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.

Just an Observer – did you see the post on this blog regarding Obama’s viewpoint on Nuclear disarment – I’ll be very interested in your viewpoint on this – right out of the “horses” mouth – on video.

This man is disturbing and I am wondering what is wrong with this picture – just what is in the Kool-Aid that people are so willing to continuously overlook this corruption surrounding this man.

Even your viewpoints were vague and elusive. It’s like you are looking at him with one eye closed and the other one half shut.

come on sparky, you think that i’m going to make up my mind based on a single post from a person that has stated their intense dislike of obama? i already said that i would take some time to learn more and respond. would you make up your mind after reading 2 paragraphs? based on your previous posts, i’m going to guess that you would not.

…and I’m going to guess that you will never respond directly regarding the video relating to disarming Nuclear weapons around the world or further discussion relating to the questions posed.

You appear to be well versed in the world of politics – no comments – this is the first time you have read the same issues mentioned in these two little old paragraphs?

i haven’t watched the posted video on nuclear disarmament yet. i will respond in due time.

i think the paragraphs you posted seem very biased, as it was clearly written by someone who intensely dislikes obama. the language used sets the issue up as a conspiracy theory.

“the largest radical group in America” – a catchy opening sentence to get your attention. i’ve read unflattering articles about acorn before, but i’ve never read acorn described as the largest radical group in america before.

“Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so.” – well, make the argument. don’t just say arguably so.

“Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.” – i don’t like to wager, especially when it comes to presidential politics. i’ll keep reading …

“or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed” – that MAY have supported acorn? sounds like a leap in logic to me.

like i wrote before, i guess i’ll have to read more to expand my understanding of obama’s connections to acorn.

The ACORN Obama knows
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

If you don’t know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League documents how Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?

Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. According to ACORN, Obama trained its Chicago members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns. Obama also sat on the boards of the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation, both of which poured money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money.

Let’s take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN’s criminal sabotage “an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.”

The group’s vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.”

In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney’s office.

Under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” ACORN has lined its pockets. The Department of Housing and Urban Development funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing “anti-poverty” groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (”The Race”) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.

As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new expose, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, “under the table” money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group’s “financial justice” operations attack lenders for “exotic” loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters “no lobby” agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.

Better yet – why don’t you look it up through Google.

The internet is an amazing thing. Obama can hide behind the MSM – but not fronm the internet.

This boy is going down.

just-an-observer-

I am not relying on intuition with the Ayres connection – the facts are out there, he is more than “just a guy in my neighborhood.” Please don’t patronize me on this. As I said, Obama’s deception about Ayres (including the “kids went to school together excuse) just makes the whole thing more troubling.

As to ACORN
Let me help you with a bit of research – some of my favorite highlights – not innuendo these are jus short facts:

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (directors Ayres and Obama) funneled money to ACORN. They had this weird “external partners” plan where they gave money to groups like this and then told the schools to go to them.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund’s website. (with the revered Bill Ayres) According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000. During Obama’s time on the Woods Funds ACORN received grants of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000 (2002) from the Woods Fund.

According to ACORN, Obama trained its Chicago members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns.

Obama also sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which poured money into ACORN’s coffers.

The Joyce Foundation’s Annual Reports list Barack Obama as one of the 12 members of the Board of Directors from 1998 until 2001 .

Last November he spoke at ACORN saying “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career,”

And now he has HIRED ACORN to work on his get-out-the-vote project. $800,000 to a group that has been involved with voter fraud for years. Can’t really call him the voice of disapproval on voter fraud now can you? Oh, did I mention that initially he “misreported” that on his FEC form? But I am sure that can happen as Obama campaign staff is made up of people who had accounting problems in their real jobs when they were running failed banks, failed low-income housing projects, etc.

And here’s more on Obama’s community organizing and ACORN’s relationship to the current FannieMae crisis.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0

No posts since October 1st? I hope that is because most of you have gently pulled your head out of your behind to see what is really important. Most of what I have read on this site is plain and simple whining. No constructive approach to problems created in the last 8 years have been even attempted. I supported Hillary till she LOST the nomination but to continue to snivel about her losing is a waste of opprotunity. Slamming Obama may seem like you are in the democratic process but not supporting getting the Republicans out of the White House is against Hillary and Bill. To those still clinging to whatever you are clinging to, this is your last wake up call. Until then you are useless.

And I myself think Hillary would be a GREAT Sec. of State pick. Go Hill!!!

“The sooner Obamatons realize that this is not about McCain but about Obama’s flawed mandate, the sooner they would come to terms with the futility of their mission.”

Really? It’s not about McCain when you are promoting putting this man in office? When you are promoting his dangerously inexperienced running mate “within a heartbeat” of Leader of the Free World?

“(I wonder why Obamatons are so threatened by Sarah, could the urban legend about a Black Man’s Kryptonite have something to do with it? ”

I know name calling and emoticons are the epitome of a solid argument, but realistically Americans should at least be cautious putting her so close to the highest office in the land. Overlooking her recent corruption investigation and the $150,000 hockey mom shopping spree, anti-Obamans might at least understand the concern of experience?