WHY WE PROTEST 

WHY  WE  PROTEST

submitted by an anonymous PUMA

In this historic election year, when the press has been interested, it has expressed confusion regarding why some Clinton supporters won’t get behind Obama and support the Democratic Party.  Many commentators, news analysts, op-ed journalists and others have stated that it seems unfathomable that someone who supports Clinton’s values and platform would not support Obama.  What they fail to realize, however, is that the issue goes far beyond candidate preference.  The core of the issue now lies in how the candidate came to be the Democratic Party’s nominee in the first place.

It is has often been stated that Obama won fair and square and Clinton’s supporters, who have been described as “bitter”, “vitriolic”, and “rabid”, need to “get over it”.  However, Obama did not “win” fair and square, and herein lies the problem.

Media

• The media was calling upon Senator Clinton to drop out of the race after Senator Obama won the Iowa caucus and continued the pressure her to drop out of the race throughout the primaries.  This was done despite what ultimately resulted in Clinton winning more primaries than any other candidate in history.  In a refreshing and well researched piece, journalist Eric Boehlert (4/30/08, Media Matters for America) describes the media’s pressure placed upon Senator Clinton to drop out of the race as being “unprecedented”.  He notes that, historically, there has been no example of the media intervening in the primary process by telling a candidate when they should end their campaign.  Boehlert cites numerous examples in the press, ranging from small city newspapers to national publications such as The Washington Post providing example after example of the media’s relentless pressure for Clinton to drop out.

• The media did not vet Senator Obama, and instead gave him a free pass on numerous very important issues that deserved scrutiny.  The mass media literally swooned over Senator Obama from the get go, from the now famous references about getting chills up his let uttered by Chris Mathews on MSNBC to gushing op-ed pieces in which even journalists themselves commented that they had to make an effort “not to drink the cool aid”.  The debates between Obama and Clinton revealed enormous discrepancies regarding how the candidates were treated.  And after the final debate, moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos ended, the media pounded with voracity, claiming the debate was “shoddy”, “despicable” and “embarrassing”.  Why?  It appears that Senator Obama was finally held to the same degree of scrutiny as Clinton.  Meanwhile, as Obama enjoyed cheers, support, sympathy and applause from the media, Clinton was persistently painted in a negative light.  She was cast as a “shrill”, “driven solely by ambition” “untrustworthy” candidate who only got to where she is today because of her husband.  The media pounded away, day after day, with disrespectful caricatures of Clinton, leaving no stone unturned.  They ridiculed her laugh, her body size and form, her wrinkles, her earrings, her “bitchiness” her emotional “instability”.  The Gallop Poll, among others, validated that most in the country agreed that Clinton (and McCain) were treated more harshly by the press than Obama.

DNC

• The DNC was calling on Senator Clinton to drop out of the race early on in the primaries.

• The DNC, repeatedly referring to “rules”, initially “punished” Florida and Michigan for holding their primaries earlier than they had been allowed to do, depriving millions of voters from having their votes fully and honestly represented.  On May 31, 2008, The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to give the Florida delegation a half vote each.  The committee’s ruling pertaining to Michigan was even more complex, whereby the committee allocated votes to Senator Obama that had literally not been case for him.  Both Michigan and Florida were states where Senator Clinton won.  Once Senator Obama’s nomination appeared secured well in advance of the convention, the Obama campaign and the DNC then decided to give Florida and Michigan full voting privileges.  Their willingness to make a dramatic shift in their position regarding the rules leaves anything thinking person suspect as to their motives for their decisions and the timing of these choices.

• The DNC did not defend Senator Clinton when the media bombarded the American public with relentlessly biased coverage, coverage that often treated Senator Clinton in a disrespectful way due to her gender.  While Senator Clinton was subjected to a deluge of outrageous treatment by the media, the Obama campaign and the DNC fell silent.  After the fact, Howard Dean offered a sad excuse by saying that he doesn’t watch television.  And, two weeks after Senator Clinton suspended her campaign, Speaker Nancy Pelosi half-heartedly acknowledged that Clinton had been subjected to sexist treatment by the media.

• Although Senator Clinton ultimately won more primaries than any candidate in history and won the popular vote, the DNC continued to press her to withdraw from the race throughout the primary season.  In so doing, they sent the message that they already had the candidate in mind who they wanted to be their nominee, irrespective of the fact that millions and millions of Democrats continued to go to the polls to cast their vote for Senator Clinton.

Super Delegate Votes Bought

• It appears that Super Delegates votes were bought and that the dollars show a heavy financial influence from the Obama campaign, in particular. Per Foon Rhee’s 2/14/08 article in The Boston Globe, since 2005, Senator Obama’s pac contributed over $694,000 to the political campaigns of various superdelegates as compared to a total of $195,000 in contributions from Senator Clinton’s pac during that same time period. In addition, at the time the article was written, nearly half of the 81 superdelegates who had already come out in support of Senator Obama had received donations that totaled more than a quarter of a million dollars. In contrast, only 13 of the 109 superdelegates (less than 10%) who had announced their support for Senator Clinton had received contributions and the total amount of those contributions was less than $100,000. In sum, Obama’s pac gave more money to more superdelegates who came out in support of him, compared to Clinton’s pac which gave far less money, if any, to a much smaller percentage of the superdelegates who supported her candidacy.

Caucus System and Voter Fraud

• The very nature of a caucus system is undemocratic and disenfranchises voters.  Succinctly stated in The News Tribune (Tacoma, WA) regarding the caucus system, “This method of nominating presidential candidates is outdated, undemocratic and limiting.”  Huge blocks of voters are disenfranchised for countless reasons, including those that are too old or ill to attend a caucus, people working split shifts, those who working in the helping professions who must be on call 24/7, people whose religious obligations prohibit them form being able to partake of a caucus held at a specific time, parents with young children, those who are unable to cope with the often hectic and disorganized environment of a caucus, voters with no transportation to get them to and from caucus sites that are often far from home, as well as voters who may not want to announce their vote (typically a very private thing) in public in front of friends and neighbors.

• Voter fraud and intimidation was rampant in many states, particularly caucus states.  Clinton supporters were accosted, some were even physically attacked.  Sign in sheets were stolen, rules were not followed, and votes from people who did not live in the county or who were not living at all were registered, individuals voted without having to show any identification, among other offenses, all to the benefit of Senator Obama.  The litany of violations is long and disturbing and is documented in pain staking detail in an ongoing research project initiated and written by Dr. Lynette Long.

Rigged Democratic Convention

• In the days leading up to the Democratic convention, the Obama campaign and the DNC made it clear that having Senator Clinton’s name placed in nomination was not a done deal.  Senator Obama engaged in negotiations with Senator Clinton regarding this issue and it appeared from several press reports that Senator Obama had the ultimate power and final say so on this issue.  With precious few days remaining until the convention, in order to ensure Senator Clinton’s name be placed in nomination, many pledged delegates began to collect the required number of signatures to be presented on the convention floor as an alternative avenue toward this goal.  Some states discouraging pledged delegates from collecting signatures, urging them to hold off until the results of these negotiations were known.  At the same time, Senator Obama’s campaign began contacting delegates to inquire into how they planned to vote.

• The Democratic Convention roll call vote was a sham.  Per an August 27^th, 2008 CNN report replete with video footage, pledged delegates were pressured before voting to avoid any “drama” on the convention floor.  The subtext being quite obvious: Cast your vote for Senator Obama in order to reduce the number of votes for Senator Clinton during the roll call thereby skewing the results so as not to reveal how very close this election was.  Video tapes from the breakfast meetings of the California delegation at the convention show speaker after speaker touting Obama, calling for delegates to chant “We will unite” and “Yes we can”.  What message did such relentless speeches send to delegates who were pledged to cast their vote as assigned, each vote reflecting thousands of Democratic voters who went to the polls during the primary to cast their vote, 18 million of whom cast their vote for Clinton.  Ultimately, the roll call vote was a sham and did not even come close to reflecting Senator Clinton’s historic achievement.  As of this writing, all of what went on behind the scenes has yet to come to light.  From what we know thus far, it is apparent the vote was rigged.  Unlike Jesse Jackson’s historic campaign for the Democratic nominee in 1984 when his name was placed in nomination and his 465 ½ delegate votes were accurately recorded for the history books, Senator Clinton’s delegate votes ultimately did not reflect the will of the voters.  As a result, the fact that she won more primaries than any candidate in history and that she was a woman will forever remain obliterated from the official record.

This is what many of us are railing against.  We cannot support a candidate or a party that selects a candidate in the face of so many egregious acts.  Nor can we support a candidate or a party that condoned and nurtured such corruption.  It goes against the very fabric of our democracy.

This is why in past years many of us who had our preferred candidate lose the nomination but who still voted for the Democratic ticket cannot do so this year.  Because this is about far more than the fact that our candidate “lost”.  This is about the very nature of how Barack Obama came to be the nominee.  The journey has been anything but fair and square, honest and open.

For many of us who are Democrats, it is unacceptable for our party to operate in this way.  We will not tolerate it.  It will not stand.

The fact that Barack Obama is so inexperienced and has a history of affiliating himself with highly questionable characters is bad enough.  The fact that the Democratic Party selected him as they have and exhibited a tolerance for misogyny and fraud is even worse.   It would appear from an analysis of the data, that the Obama campaign and the Democratic party stole the election from Senator Clinton.

So, yes, we do protest and will do so for as long as we see fit.  This is America, after all.  We treasure our democratic values.  And we hold our right to dissent and speak out freely in the face of wrong doing near and dear.

An Open Letter to Hillary from Marcia A. Pappas

Dear Senator Clinton:

You gave a fabulous, eloquent, and dynamic speech at the Democratic Convention. It brought tears to the eyes of the millions of women who worked so hard for you. One phrase in your powerhouse delivery rings on in my ears. In your call for us to back Obama you asked: “Were you in this campaign just for me or were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?”

For some people your question was a turning point. I was one of those people. And I need to answer you, not just because you are my wonderful Senator from New York, but because I want to give you the answer I know many are thinking, but lack the forum to express. You see, my dear Senator, I too sometimes have the occasion to speak for the invisible. In my capacity as President of New York State National Organization for Women, I often speak for the millions of women who are denied reproductive healthcare. I speak for the women who are beaten and abused by their partners, and whom no one believes. I speak for the women who lose their children when corrupt judges award custody to the abusers. I also sometimes speak for the millions of women who feel discrimination in the workplace, and for victims of rape and trafficking.

Then, on a micro scale, I even campaigned for and won a contentious race, backed by supporters who believe I’m a person who speaks truth without fear. I was the person they trusted would work for justice in the lives of women and all oppressed people.

So I know what you wanted to hear, Senator. You wanted to hear people in loud unison declare: “No, we were not just in it for you, Hillary; we were in it for the invisible.”But for me, the only answer can be: “Yes, Senator, I was in it for YOU, precisely because YOU were in it for those people who feel invisible, and because YOU were the candidate who saw clearly that over fifty percent of the population was being ignored.”

Who are those people? Why they are the poor, the hungry, the underinsured, i.e. women and their children. YOU are the person who addressed the issues of that fifty-plus percent. YOU are the person who worked her entire life for that fifty-plus percent. YOU are the person who, in the face of rife opposition and ridicule, stood firm in favor of health care for the invisible. YOU are the person with a proven record on Emergency Contraception for all women, because YOU understand that without reproductive freedom, women are held hostage to unwanted pregnancies. And it is YOU who has proven, over and over, that you can deliver for the invisible.

YOU were the candidate whose followers felt they knew so well, they could call her by her first name. Little girls yelled “Hillary” because they knew their future was in your hands. Single mothers saw hope for the future, knowing that their struggle would lessen under your leadership. Older women came out in the wintry Iowa Caucuses to finally vote for the first truly possible woman president. They looked into your heart, into your eyes, into your soul, and saw something different. And those of us, who traveled around the country, working for your campaign, watched you emerge as a new kind of politician. We saw YOU.

Today, your popularity endures, bigger perhaps than even you imagined. Why? Because YOU represent the invisible. YOU persist as our symbol of hope, justice and equality. Please don’t be afraid of it. Please embrace it. YOU inspired us, brought us to tears, made us laugh, and made us finally feel that we were not voting for the lesser of two evils. There are eighteen million people out here who are, like me, not ashamed, like me, to say: “Yes Hillary I was in it for YOU.”

Marcia A. Pappas
President
NOW NYS
NewYorkStateNOW@aol.com

The DNC Pretends that the Convention is a Done Deal

 

http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/confusion-and-illusion-dncc-and-dnc.html

CLINTON DELEGATE INITIATIVE CELEBRATES VICTORIES

The grassroots petition that roared.

When the Clinton and Obama campaigns announced last week that Senator Clinton’s name would be placed into nomination, a group of Clinton delegates cheered for a moment and went right back to work. With Hillary Clinton’s name “officially” on the ballot, the petition signatures were no longer technically needed. But this group of determined individuals pressed on. 

“When we started this effort, it was the ONLY way for us to be able to vote in Denver to represent the people who elected us,” said a Clinton delegate from Texas. “We’re proud of what we did. We’re going to see it to the end. Just like our candidate – we don’t quit.” 

According to DNC rules, a floor nomination petition needs a minimum of 300 signatures from voting delegates to be submitted. In July, a small but determined group of Clinton delegates and volunteers started reaching out to fellow delegates in true grassroots fashion – one by one – to collect the signatures. This proved to be slow going since Democratic Party officials would not provide contact lists for delegates. The 300 Delegate Petition group was born.

After national and international mainstream media attention, petitions started pouring in. When they received the requisite number of petitions, they once again took a breather and went back to work. DNC rules state that no more than 600 petitions can be submitted. They’re working on it.

“We’ve got well over 300 petitions now in hand,” explained Sue Castner, a Clinton delegate from Portland, OR. “Since we never consulted with Senator Clinton’s campaign, we don’t know if ‘the petition that wouldn’t die’ had anything to do with the two joint campaign announcements made last week. We will probably never know but it certainly made us feel good.” 

Signatories include a governor or two, county Democratic party chairs, members of the diplomatic corps, and even some brave Obama delegates. The names of those who signed the petition will remain a mystery unless Senator Clinton decides to file the petition, in which case, their names will be a part of recorded history.

As a meager reward for those delegates who saw the nomination process as a path to party unity and signed this historic document, a numbered commemorative pin will distinguish them from fellow delegates. Rest assured, the green pin, featuring the number 300 with a pen, will be THE most coveted pin in Denver.

 

 

PUMA CALL TO ACTION !!

 

PUMAs!

Yes, we’ve been told that Hillary’s name will be placed into nomination…

…but now we need to help make sure that that actually happens… and that it MATTERS !!

First, we need to let Hillary know (in a heartfelt and respectful manner) that we want her to retain her delegates… and that we do *not* want her to discourage them from voting for her!:

http://www.hillpac.com/action/issues/?sc=2498&utm_source=2498&utm_medium=e

Next, we need to contact Phil McNamara (Director of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection) and (respectfully but firmly) “ask” that the delegate voting process be a *fair* and *legitimate* one!:

http://www.demconvention.com/ask-phil

Finally, for more information on these matters, please read Heidi Li Feldman’s latest articles at:

http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/

THANK you!

Will Bower

PUMA / Just Say NO DEAL

 

TONIGHT at 8pm EST — “DELEGATE NIGHT” on “No We Won’t” P.U.M.A. Radio !!

 

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/NO-WE-WONT/2008/08/18/NO-WE-WONT

 

Please join us tonight (at 8pm EST) for yet another action packed show!

Dr. Lynette Long (of http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud) will be joining us to tell us about how — had it not been for the the anti-democratic nature of this year’s caucuses (and of caucusing in general) — that it would actually be Hillary Clinton who would now have the delegate lead today. 

Then, Michele Thomas of the HRC 300 Delegates petition will be with us to discuss the continued importance of that petition, and will be joined by Sacha Millstone (whose delegate status was threatened by the Colorado Democratic Party) and Deb Bartosevich (the Wisconsin delegate who *did* lose her delegate status). 

Listen in and learn how your party officials are subverting your vote.

Thank you,

Will Bower & Sheri Tag

“No We Won’t” P.U.M.A. Radio

 

P.U.M.A on CQ Politics…

Taken from CQPolitics…

The move will give voice to Clinton supporters who have argued that she — and her delegates — deserve the chance to express their preference after the protracted presidential nominating schedule. Activist groups including PUMA (Party Unity My Ass, or, People United Means Unity) have called for representation at the convention and argue that the Clinton is the rightful nominee.

Will Bower, co-founder of PUMA said he was thrilled by the news, but that now he will be doubling his efforts to convince delegates to vote for Clinton on the floor.

But Bower hardly sounded conciliatory: “We need to communicate that Hillary is the true Democrat,” he said. “That Obama has betrayed all of the core principals that matter the most to his core supporters, like the war in Iraq, FISA, etc. We’re going to keep the message alive that she is the truer candidate, the more electable candidate.”

NYT: Clinton Leaves Convention Nomination Open

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/clinton-leaves-convention-nomination-open/

 

 

The DNC’s Latest

 

 

Heidi Li Feldman on the DNC’s latest:

http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/when-calling-dnc-or-dncc-is-like.html

 

 

Delegates Want Hillary’s Name Placed into Nomination !!

 

Garry Mauro for Hillary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO4valsId4Q&eurl=http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=490

Next Page »