The Last Hillary 2008 Supporters: A Journey Into the Surreal World of the PUMAs


By Joe Campbell
July 7th, 2008


 
A puma, like the PUMAs
[Photo by victor+.]
Every once in a while, I try to check out that hidden corner of the blogosphere where Hillary Clinton supporters still live.

Over the course of the Democratic nomination, most of the online energy went to Barack Obama, Ron Paul, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. The conservative opinionsphere jumped from Giuliani to Romney to, finally, reluctactly, McCain. The liberal opionsphere seemed to weigh the pros and cons of Edwards and Obama for some time, finally coming down decisively with Obama after Iowa. Hillary Clinton, in all of this, had few web proxies.

There were some – like MyDD and Taylor Marsh – but eventually, after the stalemate of February 5th and the string of twelve consecutive wins by Obama, a new mini-opinionsphere grew out of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mainly, they were women who had taken every slight against Hillary as a personal insult; some just had a deep and abiding distrust of Barack Obama, for whatever reason. What was most perplexing to me is that this movement finally bloomed the moment Obama had taken an insurmountable lead. Despite the win in Ohio and half of the Texas two-step, and the win later in Pennsylvania, Obama never fell behind after his string of victories in February, and never even came close. And any clear-eyed analyst could see from that point that the nomination was Obama’s to lose.

But a certain segment of Hillary supporters found strength and popularity in denying the inevitable, in railing against reality.

Given the way this movement was born, it is unsurprising that small things – like Barack Obama’s mathematical clinching of the nomination or Hillary Clinton’s concession endorsement of Obama (a commentor pointed out that Hillary has yet to use the word “concede”) – would stop it. These PUMAs (Party Unity, My Ass) – as the acronym-prone, former Hillary supporter, and now die-hard anti-Obama activists now call themselves – continue to this day. Some of them, like Larry Johnson, play on fears, racial stereotypes and resentments and do their best Sean Hannity impressions. Others seem to be working full-time creating new acronyms, groups, and catchphrases. The newest and coolest catchphrase is “NObama, NOvember.”

Oddly, the arguments that are made tend to go like this:

  • Obama cannot win in November, which is why we need Hillary to be the nominee;
  • Let’s work hard to make sure Obama doesn’t win in November.

I have yet to see any acknowledgment from the PUMAs that Obama has won the Democratic nomination – and Hillary conceded it – unless you count the continuous references to stolen elections and the end of democracy as we know it. The closest I saw to an acknowledgment of Obama’s historic victory was at HillBuzz where – after suggesting that “we” would have to vote for Newt Gingrich over Obama – she wrote:

So, in the fall, barring a surprise Clinton re-entry into the race, it’s McCain over Obama for us.

In this world, there still is a chance for a surprise Hillary re-entry! Befitting the surreal world in which these blogs exist, many are still convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, if only she is given a chance.

A group called The Denver Group has been formed to take action regarding the Democratic Convention in Denver with two of it’s primary goals listed as:

  • Speeches allowed by supporters of Senator Clinton on behalf of her candidacy.
  • A genuine roll call vote with Senator Clinton as a legitimate candidate. [Emphasis aded.]

In her personal blog, Heidi Li, one of the founders of The Denver Group writes, speculates on recent news:

As Senator Obama looses support, he may well be more and more afraid that if Senator Clinton’s name is put in nomination at the Democratic Party’s convention, then Senator Clinton might actually win the nomination.

It is unclear what Ms. Li means by Obama’s loss of support – as most recent polls show him leading John McCain by significant margins. But items like these aren’t acknowledged in PUMA-land.

HillBuzz tries to explain how her fellow Hillary devotees are feeling, and what is motivating them to oppose Obama so strongly:

Our loyalty is to Hillary Clinton, personally, because we believe in her and her goals. We are no longer to the Democratic Party, because we stopped believing in it on May 31st. Whoever came up with the idea to steal 4 of Clinton’s delegates in Michigan and give them to Obama is responsible for this – you can thank that person in November…

We’re hard pressed to think of anyone Obama could run against that would force us to choose him over the opponent. At this point, after the way Obama’s campaign has treated us, and continues to treat us, we’d vote for Gingrich over Obama. And he divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer. But, we trust Gingrich to protect this country and respect its values and traditions…

So, in the fall, barring a surprise Clinton re-entry into the race, it’s McCain over Obama for us. [My emphasis added.]

It’s worth pointing out that the writer of this piece only refers to two non-self-referencing facts: Newt Gingrich’s tawdry personal life and the May 31 compromise that split the Michigan vote. There is no talk of policy; there is no discussion of what an Obama or McCain administration would look like. Instead, the writer is trying to make two points:

  • Obama didn’t treat “us” well – a highly dubious point on it’s own;
  • And “we” will vote for anyone except Obama to punish him.

An ancillary reason to trust Gingrich and to not trust Obama is that we need a president who will “protect this country and respect its values and traditions.” I’m sure elsewhere in the PUMA opinionsphere someone has listed the reasons why Obama doesn’t want to protect his country and doesn’t respect it’s values and traditions.

Balancing out this vision of Hillary as messiah is a visceral hatred of Barack Obama, as demonstrated in this oft-repeated phrase:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

This Hillaryis44 post repeats this same phrase three times and Larry Johnson and many other PUMAs have taken it us as a slogan to go alongside NObama, NOvember.

PUMAs and Projections

The John Birch Society so feared the efficacy of Communist subversives, that they created a secret society that mimicked the imagined Communist subversive threat. Republicans believed that CNN was a far left organization pushing the Democratic agenda under the guise of objectivity – so they created Fox News to take on the same role for the Republican party. American history is replete with examples of groups who deliberately mimic their enemy’s imagined tactics.

The movement that grew out of Hillary Clinton’s losses proves to be yet another example of this trend in American history. The PUMAs (Party Unity, My Ass) seem to have embraced the (real and imagined) aspects of the Obama campaign that led them to reject Obama’s candidacy:

  • They explicitly see Hillary Clinton as a messianic figure, the only one who can save the Democratic party. (See above.)
  • They deliberately disrespect and attack those demographic groups that did not support Hillary in the primaries. (Remember when Hillary was introduced by a man attacking “the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear [Obama] speak!”)
  • They have adopted the right wing talking points used to attack Obama. (This might be unfair, as it could have been Hillary surrogates themselves who gave the right wingers like Sean Hannity these talking points – so while Obama supporters did adopt certain right-wing talking points about Hillary to use against her, Hillary supporters may have invented the talking points against Obama and given them to the right-wing.)
  • Although they started out defending the role of superdelegates as those people who have the best interests of the Democratic party at heart, they now attack them for being un-democratic (and un-Democratic) – which is something Obama surrogates never came close to doing, but Clinton supporters constantly accused them of doing.
  • Many – though not all PUMAs – have resorted to race-baiting and gender-card-playing, at least on occasion. (The constant rumors of a Michelle Obama ‘Whitey’ video come from one of the founding PUMAs.)
  • They take umbrage at the smallest slight and impute near evil motives on every move that Barack Obama takes. (Which to be fair, is something some of Obama’s supporters did do – Andrew Sullivan for example.)

The key lesson I take away from this journey into the alternate reality that the PUMAs live in is this: they are a force to be reckoned with and a force that will remain in politics for some years – at least as long as Barack Obama is in the national political arena. To paraphrase Michelle Goldberg’s excellent piece in The New Republic exploring the crisis in the women’s movement that Hillary’s campaign created, the psychic wound irritated in this hard-fought primary is not Obama’s fault, but it is his problem.

Obama has already taken steps to woo Hillary Clinton’s supporters – and he will win most of the 18 million over to his side. Within those big Democratic states that Hillary Clinton won in the primary, Obama now has a sizeable lead over McCain (and in many, he also had a large lead over Hillary before the primaries ended). But there are some – and they are organized, they are angry, and they are wealthy – who will continue to fight until past the end. And there are many others who will be sympathetic – remembering how Hillary’s campaign made them feel.

If Barack Obama is elected in 2008, expect to see a PUMA or two sneak into Congress. And expect a few Congresswomen and Senators to ally with them. Hillary herself will keep her distance.

Unless Obama is able to somehow heal this particular psychic wound, the PUMAs will continue to cause him problems. It’s hard to say what impact these PUMAs will have. But if it is true that all it takes to change the world is a small group of dedicated people, then the PUMAs will be able to have an impact – as they are small in number and large in dedication.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “The Last Hillary 2008 Supporters: A Journey Into the Surreal World of the PUMAs”

  1. Patti Says:

    Keyword: SNEAK

    If Barack Obama is elected in 2008, expect to see a PUMA or two sneak into Congress. And expect a few Congresswomen and Senators to ally with them. Hillary herself will keep her distance.

    Is this a trap? Fear? You better believe it, Buster.

  2. Ted Says:

    Romney adds a net nothing to the ticket; his negatives at least approximate the positives.

    McCain NEEDS Alaska Gov Sarah Palin (if he wants to win in November) — whose positives are too numerous to mention here (with no negatives).

    – and don’t cite Palin’s lack of experience, since she’s got 10 times that of Obama!!!

  3. heart.puma Says:

    >> or Hillary Clinton’s concession

    Suspension. Hillary has not said the ‘C’ word.

    http://blog.pumapac.org/wp-content/uploads/blog.pumapac.org/2008/07/obamaposter-11.jpg

  4. joe@2parse Says:

    thanks for the correction heart.puma. corrected in the above text.

    and to Patti:

    I think you may have taken the phrase “sneak” in a way different than I intended it. Assuming Barack Obama is the nominee, and PUMAs continue to reject him and the Democratic Party – and assuming they do not embrace the conservative ideology – then it seems that to get elected to Congress without fully accepting the party you are running with, you would need to do a bit of sneaking.

    As I think is clear from my piece – I’m not afraid of PUMAs and I think they may be a force that has some staying power. However, as much as I may admire their persistence and dedication, I think they are profoundly mistaken in their view of recent events and of the immediate course for the future.

  5. tankdoc Says:

    I believe this “movement” is largely populated by older women. My gut feeling is they know that Oboma will do a fine job motivating the youth of this country and really changing the meme of the Beltway. This is their nightmare, if this happens and things get better they could be looking at 16 years before another Democratic Party women can run again. They know they won’t be around for that. A 65 year old person will be 81 years old by then.

    Their only hope is to selfishly work for an Obama loss now, so they can run their god again in 4 years.

    They forget, but I don’t, another young, energizing candidate that moved the youth of this nation and how things began to change a bit. How many people still proudly proclaim their Peace Corp work on resumes to this day.

    These people are sad and selfish.

  6. jangles Says:

    As one who proudly claims the label, PUMA, I find it very interesting to read the views of someone who is neither with us or, apparently, with Obama. You have captured some aspects of this group correctly I think (the dedication to it, deep feelings about it—the somewhat legitimate tag of not wanting to accept the reality of the numbers. But I think you did not get other aspects correctly: Obama did not win enough pledged delegates to take the nomination; his win relies on Super Delegates and their choice is profoundly political and profoundly at the hear of some of the angst. Obama is in the eyes of any PUMA most certainly not a political change agent; most certainly not a reincarnation of JFK or MLK and most certainly not a man of any notable achievement. In my own experience I spent considerable time researching what I could find about Obama’s actual work and achievement and at that time I was open to embracing his candidacy. What I found was a man appointed by Bill Ayers to chair the Board of Directors of the Annenberg Challenge to reform Chicago Public Schools. As Chair of that Board for 8 years, Obama approved the spending of more than 100,000,000.00 for a program that was more a political agenda than a plan focused on changing the dynamics for learning. The official research report at the end of the 8 years found no significant change for student performance of the soft skills that enable improved learning (ie, attendance, behavior etc). In researching Obama’s role in the privatization of public housing efforts in Chicago, the public record shows that the developments which Obama pushed and the change to privatization resulted in millions of $$s to developers (including the infamous Rezko) that resulted in tearing down old public housing, replacing it with new privately developed public housing which housing is now in such a state that is again being torn down. I expect this pattern to continue if Obama is elected, except it will be billions of $$$.

  7. Frank Says:

    Since Hilary supporters represent the bulk of the wealth in this country (baby boomer wives outliving their husbands) and Hilary effectively has much more financial sense then Obama, it would have been good financial move for the country to have Hilary as a candidate in the Fall.

  8. annie K Says:

    I know quite a few Pumas. They are not all women – far from it. They are not all 65 – far from it too. They are not all feminists. And none of the ones I have met would be considered racist. They come from every possible background. One of then is a retired African American Judge. Another one is an Ivy Leaguer writer who has lived in Europe. Some of the Pumas I know are
    LGBT . Some are latinos. Some are Jewish. Some are Asians. Some are new Americans from European backgrounds. Some are students and some are blue collar. Many of the ones I met would be considered Latte liberals. A big percentage of them ( almost all the ones I know, really) has been involved with previous democratic campaigns. To call them old, hardened feminists or hateful shrews – without having met any of them (or having met so few of them) is not fair or accurate. What they do believe is that all Democratic candidates are not interchangeable. That sometimes you look at the candidate before you look at the party. That no party owns you. They also feel that Mr. Obama has not proven to them that he has the knowledge, character, fortitude, courage, endurance, principles, that a future president of the U.S should have. They feel his past connections, choice of mentors and place of worship do not reflect his message of brotherhood and untiy. Unfortunately, these last weeks – with Obama’s stances on Fisa, campaign finance, abortion, flip flops on Israel, Iraq etc… his pandering to fundamentalist Christians and so on have only reinforced their mistrust of him. This has nothing to do with gender or race. It has everything to do with what the Democratic party supposedly stands for. The Pumas have the right to their opinion. You have the right to yours. This is the beauty of democracy. But, please, please do not make cartoons out of complex, smart people. Yes, a few of them do exhibit disrepect, contempt and sometimes hatred for Obama and that’s a shame. But to think that the Obama supporters were irreproachable during the primaries is not just false but reeks of revisionism. A lot of hostility from the Obama campaign was hurled at the Hillary Clinton volunteers. These Hillary ground people were accused of racism, ignorance and many other things. They sometimes endured insults, threats, intimidation and in some occasions assault at the hand of Obama’s volunteers. I know, it never made the news. How do I know? I was one of Hillary’s volunteers. Annie K from PA.

  9. joe@2parse Says:

    to tankdoc –

    I am sure this movement does have more than it’s share of older women. But I do not think that makes it less significant.

    to jangles –

    I am actually a supporter of Barack Obama – and have been since sometime last summer. I started out in favor of Edwards, switched to Clinton, and then to Obama – after he convinced me he had the gravitas and seriousness of purpose that the other candidates lacked.

    You say a few things that I have not heard before. You say that Bill Ayers appointed Obama to the Board of Directors of the Annenberg Challenge but the Washington Post reports that there is little evidence of a substantial relationship between Obama and Ayers – and I have never heard it mentioned before in a reputable source that Ayers appointed Obama to anything. Ayers did donate $200 to Obama, and they did serve on a board relating to a non-profit together. I don’t share you outrage at the fact that Obama approved the spending of money that was not able to fix an intractable problem that our country has been struggling with for decades.
    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

    Regarding to providing new public housing to Chicago residents, Obama’s record here is more mixed than you let on. He did support allowing private developers to build public housing – and the houses that were built now have serious problems. But – for a moment, let us put aside the fact that people like Rezko made money off of this – can someone truly be blamed for being party to yet another failure in taking on a serious and recurring problem of post-World War America? The fact that people like Rezko made money off of this does raise questions – but questions which neither you nor the Boston Globe answer. Every political action benefits someone – but that doesn’t make every politician a crook. It’s also worth noting that this measure was not enacted by Obama alone, but by a legislature in which Obama supported the measure. Are you suggesting all of the supporters were corrupt? Or just Obama?

    Obama has admitted to trying some bad ideas as a state legislator. He favored a gas tax holiday for instance. But he claims to have learned from his mistakes.

    Finally, as for the lack of legitimacy to Obama’s win – I do see what you mean. But either candidate would have needed the superdelegates to win. And if the superdelegates were taken out of the process, then Obama would have won. And if the Democratic nominee were chosen by a national popular vote, then it is unclear who would have won.

    The reason I don’t see the issue of the superdelegates giving the nomination to Obama as a big deal: because he won the process as it was set out, by playing by the rules. If any candidate had believed the process was corrupt in the first place, they should have brought that up when they had a chance to change the rules – and not waited until changing the rules was their only chance at winning.

    I do think the PUMA movement has some staying power. I don’t think that’s a bad thing overall. But I do support Obama.

  10. joe@2parse Says:

    annie K,

    I’m not sure that you actually read my piece. Most of the points you argue against I never even implied. Let me respond to your points one by one:

    Demographics

    I don’t think – and never said – that PUMAs are exclusively older white women – far from it, I label Larry Johnson a PUMA. I do think that older white women are over-represented among PUMAs though. And though I am sure it is true that some of these PUMAs would be considered “latte liberals”, the PUMA movement gained a great deal of prominence by attacking this demographic group. I never called PUMAs “old, hardened feminists or hateful shrews”.

    I did not try to ascertain the demographics of the PUMA movement. Instead, I based my analysis of what the PUMA movement is on some prominent blogs that take the term for themselves. The single core characteristics I identify is a personal devotion to Hillary Clinton.

    One thing I haven’t dwelled on much is the extent to which PUMAs are separate from those who supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. But I do believe those groups are distinct.

    The Right to Your Own Opinion

    I never, in the slightest, suggested that I doubt that you and I have the right to our respective opinions.

    Cartoons

    If you think the above profile is a cartoon, then I don’t know what to say. Based on your response, it seems doubtful you read it. At least one previous commenter who identifies herself as a PUMA found the profile sympathetic although she had some criticisms.

    Apologies

    I am sorry you faced hostility from people because of your support of Hillary. I faced a good deal of hostility from supporters of Hillary as I wrote certain posts on this blog; and a good deal of hostility from the supporters of Ron Paul when I posted other things. That’s part of politics. Assaults are a different matter. How can you substantiate your claim that Barack Obama supporters assaulted Hillary Clinton supporters? And do you believe this was widespread?

    Interchangeable

    I agree with you that the Democratic candidates were not interchangeable. That’s why I supported Barack Obama – for almost the same reasons you supported Hillary Clinton – because I did not believe she had shown the courage, fortitude, character, knowledge, or principles that I wanted in a president. Given all that, I probably would still have supported her in November – as I agonized about in the pages of this blog. Especially with McCain’s transformation in the past year.

    The Threshold Test

    As for whether or not Obama have proven himself to the task of being president – what standards would you apply specifically? how does he need to meet this threshhold?

  11. Annie K Says:

    I not only appreciate your answer but I find it intelligent. My email was not intended to respond to your blog only. It also responds to some of the responses to it. I read all the posts preceding mine before answering.
    One thing that is troubling in your article is your comparison of the PUMA words or actions to the John Birch Society’s words or actions. You talk about alternate reality making those who still hope Hillary Clinton may get the nomination seem delusional. There is a tone of heavy irony and lack of generosity toward Democrats who do not think like you that is also perturbing. Obama has a 99% chance of becoming the nominee of the party so my question to you is why mock those whose candidate is not the presumptive nominee? Not all Pumas do believe she will win the nomination. But that is not the point for them. Furthermore you state that Hillary supporters see her as a messianic figure. Some probably do. Many don’t and take her with warts and all because of her knowledge, experience and ability to work with the other side.
    As for messianic figures, I have met my share of Obama supporters who cannot accept any criticism of him, any dissent from other democrats regarding their idealized hero. Are they all “Kool-Aid drinkers” as some Hillary supporters call them? No! I have friends who have voted for Obama – my own son voted for him too – who are far from being cultists or idiots. However, I have met quite a few college students who voted for Hillary but were “in the closet” about it because of the pressure they faced on campus regarding Obama, “the cool candidate”. You do not get 18 million voters in this country by just getting the “gun totting, religion clinging lower middle class whites who don’t like people who do not look like them” and if you look at the states Hillary Clinton won between March and June she won the majority of the college students, professors etc. in some of those states, meaning she won among the demographics Obama is credited for always winning.
    It is a shame and stupid for Hillary Clinton supporters to insult Latte Liberals and it is a shame and stupid for Obama supporters to insult the “white trash” voters. Every voting block is valuable and has merit. I have met lower middle class people who were for Obama and Latte Liberals who were for Hillary. When you go door to door for a candidate you do see quite a few permutations and it does not always resemble statistics even if statistics do show a pattern. Otherwise how can one explain, the affluent county of Pennsylvania called Montgomery County voting for Hillary or the affluent Upper St. Clair suburb of Pittsburgh going for Hillary too? There are similar examples for Obama showing that he can also win the lower middle class areas. He has done it.
    These two candidates have generated tremendous interest and loyalty from their supporters. The name calling has to stop on both sides. As for McCain vs. Obama, you are assuming that every Puma will go to McCain, forgetting they are alternatives like Nader and the other candidates or that voters may stay home or change their mind and vote for Obama in the fall too. No one at this point can predict the outcome and I’m not one of those who believe that Obama will not win in November. I simply do not know, but to imagine that Pumas are small in number and large in dedication is a mistake. Most of the Pumas I know never post on Puma blogs but read them.
    I think that the Obama camp should make the effort to court them as opposed to deriding tham as Ms. Donna Brazille has done recently. If the Fundamentalist Christians, the Independents and other constituencies deserve to be courted (or pandered to, some would say), don’t you think that long time Democrats who have always taken the party seriously and given time and again deserve that kind of attention too? Respect will go a long way.

    As for why I feel and believe Mr. Obama does not at this time make a convincing Presidential candidate (which does not mean that he will never be one): He has often won poltical seats not as a result of votes but as a result of technicalities like disqualifying opponents until none of them were left to challenge him. What he did was certainly not illegal but not necesserily ethical or democratic. Many would argue that he used the rules of the DNC to disqualify Hillary in the Michigan, Florida dispute and yet the same man who swore by the rules when he took off his name from the Michigan ballot did not hesitate to appropriate four of her Michigan delegates. Also, he stated over and over during the primaries that he had followed the rules by not campaigning in Florida when he, in fact, was the only Democratic candidate campaigning there by running TV ads supporting his candidacy.

    Also, as I mentionned in my previous post, many of his connections, choice of advisors, choice of mentors and the church he was a member of for 20 years and the object of his charitable donations did not represent the unity message he’s been selling us. If you want to be the President of all Americans than why make choices that are offensive to so many? These are not brutal standards. All the other candidates meet them. This is not an impassable threshold unless having unrepentant terrorists as friends ( like Mr. Ayers, Mrs. Dohrn and others) or rabid anti-white, antisemitic pastors/”spiritual advisors” like Mr. Wright is innoffensive and charming or getting freebies from a Rezko while closing your eyes to his shady real estate dealings in the impoverished inner-city neighborhood that you are in a position to help and protect is okay. The list goes on and on. For such a short carreer, it’s pretty baffling. And there is also the issue of him changing many of his stances in the last weeks to attract the Republican hesitant voter or the confused independant. The new stances do not always mesh with what the Democratic Party has so far stood for. You surely have heard of all the Obama donors who are ” freezing” their donations to him until he cleans up his act.

    Regarding the threats, insults etc. you have been subjected to as a blogger, I have no doubt it happened and I’m sorry for it. No camp has the monopoly of smart, rational, respectful people. They all have their nutjobs.

    As for my own and my friend’s or fellow Hillary volunteers’ negative experiences, we have also had our share of being screamed at, spat at during a St. Patrick’s Day parade ( that was the experience of a 20 year old student and her friends who were wearing Hillary t-shirsts during that parade), threatened ( I was threatened on the phone and intimidated by a woman who had never met me because a friend of hers had invited me to a political gathering at her place. The hostess, suspecting that I was not an Obama supporter, after a few pointed questions my husband asked her, went ballistic on me, kept asking my name intimating that she would find me and I guess, deal with me.) I and other friends were called racists, screamed at. Hillary Clinton yard signs disappeared one night in two neighborhoods of Pittsburgh and were replaced by Obama signs. A friend of mine was punched at a caucus in Texas, another was threatened. My husband and I were told by a caring Obama supporter to leave a particular neighborhood where we were canvassing because she feared for our safety. She pleaded with us before we left. Again, I do not think that all Obama supporters are that way but this fringe segment of them is scary. Thank you for having posted my previous post and for the dialogue. Annie K from Pittsburgh.

  12. heart.puma Says:

    Annie K from PA.

    I’d like permission to cross-post/re-post your comment (“I know quite a few Pumas…”) to my blog and in a thread on another site; with credit of course! It says a lot of what, in frustration, I couldn’t verbalize this morning when called (again) a bitter, old white woman because I proudly call myself a PUMA! Being neither bitter or old I’m still no less frustrated with claims that PUMAs and NObamas are phonies and/or nonexistant beyond a single demographic. Thanks!
    heart.puma@no-obama09.com

  13. Annie K from Pittsburgh Says:

    Hello heart puma,

    Of course you can use my post. I know how you feel. Like you I’m neither old nor bitter but definitely frustrated. My husband who is an Ivy League educated (Yaley), white, sophisticated man who lived in Europe when we met ( I’m French) is just as frustrated and perturbed by the antiHillary Clinton propaganda. Hillary Clinton is beloved in Europe where they know her and value her. She’s after all a member of the European Union. When I was canvassing for Mrs. Clinton, I met my share of new Americans from European descent. They all were Hillary supporters. They remember the Clinton’s role in Bosnia and Ireland, among other things. Sure she exagerated about sniper fire (but not totally. This was a war zone after all) but she acknowledged it over and over and said she was sorry. Hillary Clinton also understands the Middle East. After all her husband was behind a peace treaty involving Israel and the Palestinians. It is always interesting when I hear people say that because Obama spent a ferw years in Indonesia as a child he’s more fit to deal with international crisis. Also, I always found it amusing when Obama supporters said that he was the candidate of minorities. I guess women, Latinos, LGBT, Asian AMericans, Pacific Islanders, New Americans from European background, Jews and native Americans who chose her were not part of a minority group. Annie.

  14. Annie K Says:

    Oops! I was tired last night and made two mistakes. Hillary is a member of the European Commission – not the European Union. Her husband was involved with the Oslo Accords which was an attempt at a peace treaty in the Middle East. What I was trying to convey in that clumsy blurb was that Hillary Clinton had been a witness (if not to some degree a player) to the International crisis fronts of the 1990’s and if you read Stephanopoulos’ book “All Too Human” you realize that the Clintons faced other challenging International crises in other parts of the world as well .

Leave a Reply