There’s a problem with repeatedly telling the same lies during a political campaign. Some of your supporters actually fall for them. I’ve been seeing a number of reports lately on PUMAs, including this story from CNN. PUMA is an acronym for Party Unity My Ass, and is the slogan for groups which still support Hillary Clinton, often to the point of hoping that Obama loses to John McCain. Just last week I noted the fantasies of some that Clinton will still win the nomination.
Apparently the prospect of the return of shirt hanger abortions is not a concern to them. CNN summarizes their views:
Why are they angry? It all depends on whom you ask.
Some of the PUMAs accuse Democratic leaders of rigging the primaries to favor Sen. Barack Obama, while others feel that he is not qualified to be the party nominee, let alone competent enough to lead the country.
Kim Mann said she thinks that Obama is too liberal. Webster Tarpley said the senator from Illinois is too conservative. But Mann, a 52-year-old project manager from Manassas, Virginia, and Tarpley, a self-described 62-year-old “controversial author,” agree on one thing: Neither wants Obama to be the Democratic nominee.
Rigging the primaries? Many of the complaints come down to their belief in the arguments made by Hillary Clinton which showed a total disregard for the basic principles of democracy. It was Obama who followed the rules while Clinton tried to change rules which even she had agreed to after the fact for political gain. You really can’t get more undemocratic than Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue short of totally bypassing elections. She made matters even worse by subsequently trying to cast doubts on the legitimacy of Obama’s clear victory in the primary battle. For a democracy to work it is necessary for the various parties to both obey the rules and accept the legitimacy of the results.
A second big lie of the Clinton campaign was to try to position Clinton as the more experienced candidate, when in reality she is much less qualified than Obama. Being around power is hardly the same as exercising power. Clinton’s foreign policy experience was certainly exaggerated, with her not even having national security clearance during her husband’s years in the White House. Obama has more years of legislative experience than Clinton, and his experience teaching Constitutional law will be particularly valuable following the Bush years. Obama’s experience in community organizing has been valuable in forming a campaign capable of beating the Clinton machine, and such lessons are also seen in his approach to government, providing a welcome contrast to Clinton’s out-dated top-down Nanny State views.
The most absurd argument is that Obama is too conservative, considering how far Clinton has moved towards the right during the years in which she believed that she was the inevitable Democratic candidate for 2008. The claim that Clinton is more liberal is hardly supported by looking at the differences in their positions on many issues. Clinton’s views on bannning flag burning and her vendetta against video games and cartoon sex are hardly liberal. Clinton was not particularly liberal in her support for Wal-Mart’s union busting tactics. Clinton has increasingly adopted both the views and tactics of her new friends in the vast right wing conspiracy. Clinton backed the Iraq war, despite her attempted to hide this fact. She has stronger ties to the religious right than the presumptive Republican candidate. She backs the same types of abuses of executive power practiced by George Bush. On social issues and civil liberties issues, this old Goldwater Girl has moved to the right of Barry Goldwater, who at least was a strong opponent of the religious right.
Hillary Clinton repeatedly showed herself to be neither qualified to be president or to hold the ethical standards we should have in a president. Some would argue that the die hard Clintonistas should naturally vote for Obama over McCain. While true of the vast majority of long time Democratic voters who are supporting Obama regardless of their first choice in the primaries, this might not be true of the Clintonista die hards. If they really support the policies, and even worse, the tactics of Hillary Clinton, this is a movement whose fundamental beliefs are contrary to the principles of liberalism and they really are much closer to George Bush and John McCain. It is perfectly understandable that these people would prefer McCain over a liberal such as Obama.
Update: Even more absurd Clintonista nonsense
Update II: If you need any evidence that these people are totally out of touch with reality, just see the comments. below. Fortunately they represent a very tiny number of voters who just make a lot of noise on line.
Update III: A Further Look at The Clinton Die Hards From PUMA
I whole heartedly agree but the media neatly tries to ignore this. McCain will win. Obama will never get the lions share of those 18 million Hillary supporters in the general election. Hillary supporters feel relatively comfortable with McCain!!!
Go right ahead, vote for McBush, is your loss. I already forgot about Clinton. She lost, Obama won thats the deal.
And if you all think you will sent a message, on you dreams. Stop acting like sore losers.
And if you satisfy with Bush policies, than go right ahead and vote for McBush.
That’s cool with me, I’ll gladly vote for McCain. The media slandered and demonized Hillary, and both Obama and the media must pay. Period.
Obama did not win fairly: he won because superdelegates were pressured into supporting him. And the DNC pressured the superdelegates by cheating Hillary out of Michigan and Florida. This primary was illegitimate. As a result, I am no longer a Democrat.
And Obama argued for no revotes, 1/2 votes and for 4 delegates he didn’t win by using some exit poll. I’m sorry, I don’t think so! 14 years as voting for Democrats, this year, if it is Obama, I will leave top of the ticket blank….Enjoy the balloon dropping ceremony and the undemocratic one name on the ballot at the convention….
Sign the pledge
http://www.iownmyvote.com
Another talking head, full of sh** and deeply in love with Obama
McCain 08
Hillary 2012!
I disagree. Obama’s campaign was sexist v/s hillary. They pulled the race card of slick willy. The whole obama-deitification was a fraud and tons of primary voters are now suffering from buyer’s remorse (myself include; and I’ll vote for war hero this Nov).
Also, you’re taking bong hits if you’re asserting that obama is not inexperienced. Hillary’s far more experienced than Obama- can’t even argue that. Obama is the emptiest suit with the thinnest resume to ever run for President. And the media is in the bag. No whetting whatsoever. Very shocking. Also, the only change we’ve gotten from Obama is his changing positions on a plethora of issues.
Yes,I am going to vomit and vote for “McBush” because at least he didn’t go to a church that spewed hate and intolerence for 20 years or buy a house in a combo deal with a mobster…The media is in the tank for “The Holy One”, what they did to the best candidate(H.Clinton)they are now doing to McCain.
If Obama had a little moustache his supporters would have their right arms raised….they can not accept legit critiques of him
Few Clinton supporters will actually vote for McCain. McCain left his wife for a younger, sexier, wealthier woman. This character trait doesn’t exactly appeal to middle aged/mature females.
Go Mccain!!!!
Just shows you what kind of “character” makes up many of Hillary’s blind followers…just face the facts, she never had a chance. Thank God too, she was relentlessly stubborn and was smug with entitlement. A liar and a cheat. If Obama picks her as VP my vote goes to McCain.
Wrong, baby! When someone’s got the popular majority (18 millions), then Michigan and Florida votes were lopped off, sure we get mad. So, we’ll either stay home in November or vote for McCain – this as a lesson for Howard Dean.
It really doesn’t matter what others think. The fact is that PUMA erupted overnight, and we all agree that the elections was shocking in how the Democrats twisted the party rules to make sure that Obama won.
You may support that type of politics, but I sure don’t.
Never.
35 years as a straight Democrat, but today, I’m PUMA.
Ron,
That was one of the more clueless blogs I’ve read in a while.
First, let me say that I will vote for Obama even though I supported Clinton and I’m still angry at the way she was treated by the mainstream press. I have problems with Obama, but he’s far better than McCain. He’s the Democrat. He’s going to get us out of Iraq. John McCain will give us more war. The choice is that simple.
Now . . .
Clueless statement #1: Clinton voted for the flag-burning bill. Yes, but so did Obama. They both voted for it to prevent an amendment to the Bill of Rights from passing (it would have) and to give cover to red-state Democrats. Which is worse, a bill or amending the constitution?
Clueless statement #2: Clinton adopts the views of the right. Ahem, it was Obama who kept repeating the right-wing nonsense that social security won’t be there for future generations unless we “fix” it. Clinton was the one who said there was no crisis. It was Obama who used right-wing arguments to criticize Clinton’s health care mandates. Obama doesn’t propose universal health care, like Clinton or Edwards do. What kind of a liberal does that make him?
Clueless statement #3: Clinton used right-wing tactics, a.ka. the “kitchen sink” myth. If Clinton really wanted to go after Obama, that Reverend Wright tape would have been released by her campaign, not by a news outlet. And it would have been released when it could have made a difference.
There’s more but I’ll leave it at that. Let’s just say I have some issues with Obama, and I’m afraid he’s going to miss his chance to effect the change that we need (see universal health care). But, overall he’s ok.
Isn’t it possible for bloggers like you to say, gee, I prefer Obama but Clinton is pretty good, too? And maybe acknowledge that she’s isn’t evil after all?
You people are ridiculous. I couldn’t even read all the comments. I worked in “Governor” Clinton’s office in 1985, Campaign in 1992 and served in the Administration from 1993 – 1997. No greater “pressure” can be put on delegates than that from a popular former president. To think that Hillary’s entire strategy was staked on superdelegates, and now to blame Superdelegates for electing Obama, is truly ridiculous. Note to Michigan and Florida Democratic parties: Don’t break the rules in the future and you won’t lose representation.
No self proclaimed Democrat can vote for McCain in this election. If you do, you are truly putting party above country, and that makes you part of the problem.
Go for it, ladies! I’ll be laughing if Mac wins and he begins to overturn Roe Wade and other feminist strongholds…see how you like that!! 🙂
Reading some of these comments, I see why it is called a :lunatic fringe.” Ceertainly these PUMA people and Hillary die-hards are demented, but these are pitifuloly few of them (thank god).
New Obama Supporter,
Before you accuse someone of being clueless, you better get your facts right.
Clinton supported the ban on flag burning. Obama opposed it, releasing this statement on the civil liberties aspects which someone as conservative on civil liberties issues as Hillary Clinton has no respect for.
Your distortions of the Social Security issue and excuses for the disgusting manner in which Clinton resorted to Rove style politics are no more accurate.
There is nothing right wing about facing reality on Social Security, but then we know that Hillary now says we should ignore economics. There is nothing right wing about giving people choices in health care, unless you are an anti-freedom nanny stater like Clinton who cannot conceive of any way of solving problems other than requiring that everything can only be done her way. That’s why health care reform went no where the last time Clinton was entrusted with any political authority, and why it would have gone no where if Clinton had won the nomination.
JWL,
Michigan law prevented a fair revote. This was not up to Obama.
Obama would have won here in Michigan if there had been a fair vote, so Clinton supporters should be happy that she got as many delegates as she did, despite her attempts to steal even more votes here and undermine the democratic process.
Jane states that both Obama and the media must pay the price because Hillary was treated unfairly. No, Jane, Obama and the media will not pay the price. Our country, my children, my grandchildren will pay the price should people like you vote for McCain out of bitterness. Bitterness leads to cloudy thinking. God bless America
Barbara,
Definitely true. The whole Hillary as victim meme went way too far and pretty much amounted to excuses for the loss of a someone who ran a poor campaign.
There were certainly some nasty things coming out of the media (which I had also criticized here in the past). Obama certainly cannot be blamed for idiotic things coming from some members of the media. For his part, while not perfect Obama ran an extraordinarily clean campaign, despite how dirty and a dishonest campaign he was faced with from Clinton. Of course this turned out to be a major reason why so many superdelegates, as well as voters, ultimately backed Obama over Clinton. We don’t need another Karl Rove campaign from the Democratic side.
If Clinton had run a better campaign, or more importantly, had she been a better candidate, they could have overcome some of the unfairness from the media. She is hardly the only candidate to be the subject of some unfair media comments.
It makes absolutely no sense to punish not only Obama, but the entire country (actually world) because they are angry about some unfair things from the media.
Ron,
Sorry, but my facts are correct.
In June 2006, Obama and Clinton each voted “no” on a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning; on the same day, each voted “yes” on a bill that would ban flag burning in some circumstances.
Here is the Senate link to the votes on the constitutional amendment:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189
As you will see, Clinton and Obama voted “nay.”
Here is the Senate link to the votes on the bill:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188
As you will see, both Clinton and Obama voted “yay.”
Obama and Clinton have *the same* voting record on flag burning.
Your link refers to Obama’s statement on the amendment. Here is Obama’s explanation on why he voted “yes” on the bill:
“There is, in fact, another way. There is a way to balance our respect for the flag with reverence for the Constitution. Senators CLINTON and BENNETT are proposing an amendment to this proposal that would protect the flag without amending the Constitution. Their statutory approach is a new one that doesn’t fall into the same constitutional traps that doomed previous flag protection bills. The Clinton-Bennett amendment is narrowly drawn to meet the first amendment tests the Supreme Court has laid out in previous court decisions. It makes it illegal to burn a flag in a threatening way or to incite violence. I believe this statute will pass constitutional muster and be upheld by the Supreme Court. I will vote for the Clinton-Bennett amendment in an effort to find a way to balance our respect for the flag and our protection of the Constitution.”
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S6524&dbname=2006_record
I don’t blame you for getting it wrong. The media has been truly inept at explaining issues like this to the public, preferring instead to draw simplistic caricatures of Clinton.
I understand you prefer Obama on civil liberties issues; that’s fine with me. But, Clinton isn’t a conservative. I hope what I wrote will cause you to reevaluate your opinion of Clinton.
Thanks.
New Orleans Supporter,
No, you are incorrect. You are distorting the issue by cherry picking certain votes without looking at the whole issue. The political issues behind the two specific votes you limited to discussing were convoluted and only looking at this provides a misleading and incomplete look at the issue.
Besides the votes in 2006, Clinton also co-sponsored legislation to ban flag burning back in 2005. My view on Clinton’s conservative views on civil liberties issues is not affected at all by the incomplete evaluation of the issue in your response. The fact remains that it was Clinton, not Obama, who pushed the issue of flag burning. In addition, this is only one of many conservative stands Clinton has taken on civil liberties issues.
Ron,
There is nothing to cherry pick, those were the only two Senate votes on the issue during the entire Congressional session.
Clinton voted against a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag desecration. You can’t downplay it as just a “certain vote”, as you say. Amending the Constitution is a very big deal. To use a sports metaphor, it’s game 7 of the World Series when the whole season is on the line, except in this case, it’s our freedom that’s on the line.
You also can’t have it both ways. You can’t give me the link to Obama’s statement against the amendment as proof that he doesn’t support a flag burning ban … then, when I show you that Clinton also voted against it, say it doesn’t explain the whole issue. What is the “whole issue,” by the way?
Clinton did push a limited flag-burning bill back in 2005. The reason was to give cover to red-state Democrats so they could vote against a Constitutional Amendment. The 2005 bill (which never came to a vote) was the same as the 2006 bill (slightly amended) that Obama voted for. If she hadn’t pushed the bill the Amendment would have passed. It failed to pass the Senate by one vote!!
The fact is, you explicitly said that Obama and Clinton were on different sides of this issue. As I have shown, that argument is clearly false.
I’m not arguing with you about other civil liberties issues. Indeed, it’s my impression that Obama is more liberal (or libertarian) than Clinton on these kinds of issues. But, on flag-burning, there’s no difference.
Ron, please give some thought to what I’ve said. Consider the possibility that, if you got Hillary wrong on this issue, there may be other issues that you’ve gotten wrong, too. I’m not trying to get you to like her, I just want you to reconsider the caricature of her (“Rovian” “conservative”) that you and others have created.
New Obama Supporter,
The issue I was addressing was not any one particular vote. My argument is not how they voted, which does not give a full picture of their views, but their attitudes on the issue. I got Clinton right on this issue and looking at a couple of isolated votes in no way changes this. There is a tremendous difference when Clinton has repeatedly pushed such bans while Obama has spoken out on the civil liberties ramifications. To try to obfuscate their philosophical differences based upon a couple of votes where many political fa tors were also at play is highly misleading.
The fact remains that it was Clinton, not Obama, who has pushed this issue as part of a general trend for her to push a right wing agenda with regards to civil liberties issues. It was Clinton who co-sponsored such legislation (which is not limited to the bill and amendment you linked to).
You are also misleading when you refer to Clinton voting against a Constitutional amendment on the issue. That was not the issue I raised. The issue is her support for legislation (not a particular Constitutional amendment) banning flag burning. This is a cause which Clinton has pushed and which Obama has not. Despite your claims, there is a difference between the two on this issue.
If this was the only difference then it would be insufficient to support the argument that Clinton has been far to the right of Obama on civil liberties issues. However this is only one of many issues.
Cherry picking a couple votes in no way changes either Clinton’s conservative views on these issues or the fact that she ran a dishonest, dirty campaign which was every bit as dishonest as those run by Karl Rove.
Looking back at the campaign, it is amusing that it was actually quite frequent that people used tactics such as that used by New Obama Supporter to falsely claim that Obama’s views were the same as Clinton’s. (The most obvious case of this was on the war). Of course when you resort to using Congressional votes which often are on party lines and which involve a number of political factors independent of the ideology of the candidate it is easy to give a misleading view of a politician.
On the one hand we have Clinton supporters who claim that Obama is more conservative than Clinton. On the other hand they have often defended Clinton when her views were criticized by claiming that Obama’s views were the same as hers. Neither claim is accurate.
Not that it is any more accurate, but if we were to use voting records alone without looking beyond the votes, then National Journal has settled the issue of whether Obama or Clinton is more liberal in finding that Obama is the most liberal member of Congress.
Ron,
I know you didn’t raise the point about her voting against an Amendment. I did, because it gives a fuller picture of her views on the issue than cherry picking *one* vote, as you do. And please don’t say that Clinton pushed for it, whereas Obama merely voted for it for political reasons. In my opinion, that’s a distinction without a difference.
Now I’m sure Obama has spoken out on the issue in a way that’s more to your liking. I’ll even concede the point that their attitudes and their orally expressed views on the issue are different. But, to paraphrase Deng Xiaoping, what does it matter if it’s a grey cat or a black cat? It’s a good cat if it catches the mouse.
Flag-burning is just one issue. And yes, a voting record on this one issue doesn’t give the full picture of one’s disposition toward civil liberties. But, since her voting record on this issue doesn’t fit in with the “Hillary is a right-winger” meme, it must be confronted honestly. So should the FISA bill vote, for which Obama voted “yes” and Hillary voted “no”. The way I see it, you can either deal with the complexity of both Obama and Clinton’s positions and views, or you can choose to paint one as all-good and the other as all-evil never mind the facts. Which one will it be?
I was going to give this thread a rest, but then I saw that you linked back to it in a recent post with some more slurs against Clinton and passionate Clinton supporters who feel (justifiably, in my view) that she got a raw deal. If we are going to get these so-called PUMAs back on board, maybe we should get away from this “Hatfields and McCoys” mentality. Maybe persuasion might work better than mockery and insults. And yes, they can be persuaded. I know I’ll do my part.
New Obama Supporter,
You still do not get it. I am looking at their overall philosophy. Cherry picking specific votes as you do is an easy way to provide a distorted view of where they actually stand. With regards to FISA, I disagree with his vote but recognize the political realities which would have forced any Democratic nominee to go along with the compromise at the time.
As Matthew Yglesias wrote, “I don’t believe that if Clinton and Obama swapped roles that they’d be acting any differently.” If Clinton was the nominee, I bet that she would not only have voted yes, but would have been pushing hard for this. After all, Clinton is the one who repeatedly has pandered to fear of terrorism while both campaigning and while justifying her support for the Iraq war.
I choose to deal with the complexities of their views and their votes, rather than cherry picking facts as you do to make your argument.