Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer la page Administration Créer mon blog

Pumas in the Media

PUMAs: The Democrats the Media Doesn’t Talk About

Posted on October 26th, 2008
Read 288 times.

PUMA Power:
One-Fourth of Democrat Party Used to Being Ignored by Maintream Media

PUMAs are the One Group Who Has Already Gone Head-to-Head Against “The Obama Experience”


* The Mainstream Media Bias
* ACORN Voter Fraud
* The Blog Shutdowns and Intimidation Tactics
* The “Fix is In” Frustration

PUMAs: Been There, Done That

These days, the most energetic investigations, the loudest warnings and the people most experienced with unpleasant Obama campaign tactics come not from the Republican Party, but from a segment of the Democrat Party: the PUMAs.

They represent a significant proportion of the Democratic Party–a portion the Mainstream Media is loathe to acknowledge, let alone report.

Some became PUMAs after what they felt was unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton. Some because of the unfair treatment in the media of Sarah Palin. Some because they cannot support a candidate who Joe Biden said “wasn’t ready” just months ago–before Biden became Barack Obama’s running mate.

Party Unity My Ass (PUMA)

PUMA is a movement born shortly after Hillary Clinton conceded the Democrat nomination to Barack Obama. PUMA blogs and websites almost immediately popped up on the Internet.

* P.U.M.A.
* The Real Barack Obama
* Democrats For McCain
* PUMApac
* The Confluence
* PUMA Women
* Hillbuzz

The above websites are only the tip of the PUMA iceberg.

PUMA bracelets

A sizable portion of Democrats say they will not support Barack Obama. Seems like that would be quite a story for some enterprising Big Media reporter, doesn’t it?

Perhaps the organization the Obama campaign has set up apart from local Democrats–Obama’s Campaign for Change offices number in the hundreds nationwide–would be a story.

The answer: no.

From Obama Campaign’s National Network Separate from the Democratic Party:

An AP-Yahoo News poll claims that Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries are still not warming up to Barack Obama. Fifty-eight percent of Clinton supporters now back Obama.

ObamawithSeal.jpgThat was the same percentage who said they backed Obama in a June, when Clinton called it quits and the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) movement was born.

The poll shows that while Obama has gained ground among Clinton’s supporters — 69 percent view him favorably now, up 9 percentage points from June — this has yet to translate into more of their support.

In part, this is because their positive views of Republican presidential nominee John McCain have also improved during this period. Those supporting McCain have also edged up from 21 percent to 28 percent, with the number of undecided staying constant, the survey showed.

That was last month. Have things changed since then?


Hillary Clinton has been campaigning for Obama–and there are plenty of stories that report that the PUMAs practically don’t exist.

But is that true–or wishful thinking?

Continue reading: PUMAs: The Democrats the Media Doesn’t Want to Talk About

by Mondo Frazier


PUMA Leader: "We're As Anti-Obama As Ever"

 Remember the PUMAs? Those militant Hillary Clinton supporters—the ones who were so fired up when McCain chose Sarah Palin for his running mate—are still pissed off. They're still saying "no deal" to Barack Obama, and still telling you where you can stick your worthless party unity. (Up your corrupt, sexist, hope-loving ass.)

Of course, recent events have set back PUMA concerns. In the wake of Wall Street's economic meltdown, Obama has pulled ahead in key swing states, and Intrade now puts his chances of victory at better than 75 percent. What's more, PUMA's pant-suited queen of hearts recently told CBS news that her chances of running again are "probably zero."

But Will Bower, co-founder and spokesman for puma08.com and Just Say No Deal assures Radar that he's not deterred, and that the movement is not suffering from a lack of enthusiasm.

"Every Puma is as anti-Obama as they ever have been," says Bower. He points out that a recent Zogby poll puts Obama and John McCain in a statistical dead heat. Bower is also unconvinced by Hillary's remarks to CBS: "I think she has to say that. It would have sent a message if she were already looking to 2012. It will be a different story if Barack Obama loses."

Bower says the movement hasn't lost steam, though he admits it has splintered a bit since the convention. That's possibly because, when it comes to Obama's miscarriage of a candidacy, there are so many people to blame. "There are a lot of different fronts now," says Bower, of what he estimates to be 4.5 million followers. (His estimate is based on an August poll indicating that 28 percent of Hillary's primary voters do not plan to vote for Obama.) "Some PUMAs still want to support down-ticket democrats. Others want to target dems—like Robert Wexler and Nancy Pelosi—who were complicit in party dealings [leading to Barack Obama's nomination.]"

Bower, of course, plans on voting for McCain-Palin in November. (He admires Palin's reformer spirit, and says that PUMAs, in general, are "sympathetic" to the Alaska governor.) When asked about McCain's widely criticized negative campaign ads, Bower responded: "They're fair. They're informative. There's a lot that the American people don't know about Barack Obama. If anything, McCain has shown restraint."

Over on puma08.com, a writer called "PUMA Pundit"—Bower says it's not his nom de plume—shows no such restraint. Visitors to the site can get their daily dose of Obama-inspired outrage through posts with titles like "Is Obama A Friend To The Black Community? Three-Year-Old Curtis Cooper, Dead Black Boy Would Say 'No..." and
"Barack Obama might as well have called John McCain a 'Nigga Hating Cracker'". PUMA Pundit also encourages like-minded supporters to mislead pollsters, writing: "remember to let [them] know that not only do you intend to vote, but that you are strongly committed to voting for Barack Obama.... Let Obama and his surrogates keep on being lulled into a false sense of security at having a lead in the national polls."

Will Bower

Posted September 12, 2008 | 04:39 AM (EST)

The minute the media outlets announced the Iowa Caucus for John Kerry in 2004, I knew what was in store for us that November -- another lofty Democrat would go on to lose the general election to the more approachable Republican.

Since its rise to prominence in 1972, Iowa has done *nothing* to promote success for Democrats in November. The closest the Iowa Caucus has ever come to getting it right was in 1976, when Jimmy Carter came in a distant second to "Uncommitted" -- and, even then, it's not as if Jimmy Carter went on to demonstrate the best that the Democratic Party had to offer in the way of executives.

Let's examine: 1972, Edward Muskie? 1976, Jimmy Carter? 1984, Walter Mondale? 1988, Dick Gephardt? 1992, Tom Harkin? 2004, John Kerry? And, yes... 2008, Barack Obama? And how did our most successful Democratic president since FDR fair? Bill Clinton, 4th place, at 3% (behind even "Uncommitted") in 1992. And yet every four years, both parties bend over backwards to ensure Iowa's primacy in choosing our presidential candidates. Iowan Democrats seem to prefer failure, and the Democratic Party seems to prefer Iowa.

So when I witnessed Barack Obama get an upper hand on the more competent and electable Hillary Clinton in Iowa this past January, I asked myself "How can we free ourselves from this failed process?" So I drafted my "Proposal for the 2012 Primaries"... which is how I came to write for The Huffington Post.

In fact, many of my articles here provide a glimpse into my own evolutionary process this political season -- a process shared by many others -- a collective process that would ultimately break forth virally as the PUMA Movement.

The best example of such an article is the one I wrote about the now infamous DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Hearing on Florida and Michigan, and, of course, my evening with the ever-provocative Harriet Christian.

A few days after these gut-wrenching events, two of my FaceBook cohorts presented to me an image born out of their own indignation of the DNC's rulings -- a picture of a snarling puma, on which were written the words "Party Unity My Ass."

2008-09-12-puma.jpgIt was from that moment that we began our FaceBook crusade. I was one of the administrators of the FaceBook group "Hillary Clinton for President." We asked our like-minded peers in the Hillary group to change their profile photos to pictures of pumas, and to change their "Political Affiliation" to "PUMA"... and, within days, three individual FaceBook PUMA groups had already spun off from the original Hillary group.

Erika Niedowski, a journalist for "The National", noticed all this FaceBook activity and, on June 7th, decided we were worth an introduction to the press.

Little did I know that there was already a hotbed of PUMA activity elsewhere in the blogosphere. Over at Riverdaughter's "The Confluence" -- inspired by the very same RBC ruling -- a commenter known as "SM" (now "SM77") had shouted out that very acronym, and Riverdaughter leapt into action with "The PUMA Unparty." Soon thereafter, their fellow 'Conflucian', Darragh Murphy, would set "PUMA Pac" into motion.

We were soon able to come together and join forces -- along with several other like-minded groups -- as members of a united front. Diane Mantouvalos, co-founder of HireHeels.com, had noticed the backlash amongst disaffected Democrats within the blogosphere and, on the eve of Hillary Clinton's suspension speech, decided to plan a conference call to unite the many disparate factions under one umbrella. It was during this call that the "Just Say NO DEAL" coalition was born.

Within 24 hours, Thuc Nguyen and I were on FOX News to announce the birth of this coalition. Granted, it was the first time either of us had ever appeared on a major news network, and we were a little bit green at it. However, we weren't so green as to stop the movement in its tracks.

Many interviews soon followed, as did blog talk radio stations devoted to the PUMA cause, and documentaries on caucus fraud (such as GiGi Gaston's "We Will Not Be Silenced" and Lorenda Starfelt and Brad Mays' "The Audacity of Democracy"). An explosion of new PUMA-related web sites within the "Just Say NO DEAL" coalition emerged and within weeks, PUMA had been mentioned and/or featured on all the major networks and news networks, even getting the attention of "Meet the Press".

Since those early days, one of our greatest successes has been to help get Hillary Clinton's name placed into nomination at the Democratic Convention. Back in early June, Sue Castner and other brave delegates -- with the help of a few non-delegate activists -- launched an initiative to form the 300-delegate petition required to place a candidate's name into nomination.

For most Democratic conventions in recent history, candidates' names have been placed into nomination at the discretion of the Party chair. This group of Clinton delegates knew, however, that Howard Dean would be doing no such thing for Hillary Clinton. There is, however, a provision which allows *delegates* to place a candidate's name into nomination via the aforementioned petition.

We PUMAs did our best to promote this petition for these delegates and to educate the public as to how Howard Dean and the DNC were attempting to thwart all efforts to have Hillary's name placed on the nominating ballot. The media, too, was complicit in this, putting forth stories that Hillary did not *want* to have her name placed into nomination.

Then two PUMAs in San Francisco, "SimoFish" and "Puma-SF", captured and released a video that would turn the media's narrative on its head.

Delegates who had been unsure whether or not to participate in the petition now had the encouragement they needed. As the convention approached, Barack Obama knew that these delegates would indeed have the 300 signatures needed to place Hillary Clinton's name into nomination... at which point he made his announcement that this was what he had wanted all along. It wasn't. The delegates had forced his hand.

Of course, Nancy Pelosi would then go on to thwart this effort for a fair roll-call vote by evoking yet another petition -- one requiring *800* signatures. Being that she did so at the last minute, this was something that the delegates were not able to accomplish in time. Pelosi's maneuver brought to an end any possibility for redemption to this political season... and is something we PUMAs shan't soon forget.

And now? One of our primary goals (if not *the* primary goal) is to unite those millions of us disaffected Democrats, and to hold the DNC and its leadership accountable this November and beyond.

In 2000, Democratic leaders went to the pulpits to preach "Popular Vote" and to tell us of how anti-democratic the Electoral College is. Yet, in 2008, they put forth a nominating system that makes the Electoral College look like one of the most democratic systems we have going.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama's Holy Grail was that he had won more delegates than had Hillary Clinton. However, what the media and America didn't seem to realize is that that delegate count itself is representative of next-to-nothing. Barack Obama won more delegates by winning the state of Idaho than Hillary Clinton won by winning the states of Ohio and Texas combined... all based on a mangled and socially-engineered allocation system currently employed by the DNC. If we were to look at something more truly representational -- Congressional districts, for example -- we would see that Hillary Clinton won over 40 more Congressional districts than did Barack Obama. Good enough for Congress, but not for Democratic primaries?

Everything that is wrong with the system favored Barack Obama. Everything that is right about the system favored Hillary Clinton.

Many of us PUMAs feel that the DNC did to us in 2008 what the RNC and the Supreme Court did to us in 2000. Barack Obama represents the will of the DNC -- He does *not* represent the will of the Democratic voter. It is this betrayal and hypocrisy that have led us to a place where we cannot fathom validating Obama with our votes this November.

There are, of course, a great number of other grievances we PUMAs share -- the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida; the anti-democratic nature of caucuses (and the abuses and fraud there within); misuse of power by such Party leaders as Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Donna Brazile; a corrupt super delegate system, in which votes can be bought and sold; and unchecked misogyny within the media being a few of the most prominent.

So what's next? PUMAs are as committed as ever *not* to vote for Barack Obama in November. Some of us will be voting for John McCain. Some of us will be voting for a third-party candidate. Some of us will be writing-in Hillary Clinton's name. And some of us will be abstaining altogether.

Beyond this, many PUMAs want to salvage the Democratic Party itself... if we still can. Still supporting most down-ticket Democrats, PUMAs want to see drastic changes in Party *leadership*. Many of us want Hillary Clinton to be Senate Majority Leader in 2009 (http://hrcforsenatemajorityleader09.com), and many of us want Nancy Pelosi to lose her Congressional seat this November (http://cindyforcongress.com). There are several other faces that need to be changed as well -- with Howard Dean and Donna Brazile leading the list.

And beyond the personalities involved, the *process* must be changed. Regardless of who becomes the 44th President of the United States, the PUMA Movement will push forward with its goals for fairer elections.

In a statement addressing PUMA, Pennsylvanian Governor Ed Rendell himself stated:

We agree with many of your grievances. For example, we, too, believe that the Democratic Party's nominating process is unfair and undemocratic. We must change the policy where some votes are more important than others and some areas receive more delegates than their number of voters would justify - it violates the spirit of "one person, one vote." We must eliminate caucuses that are inherently undemocratic and disenfranchise seniors (no absentee voting for those who can't go to the polls), shift workers and our military. Forcing people to declare their preference in public also violates another cherished principle that undermines our democracy.

Or, as I have been known to state:

If the Democratic Party won't uphold Democratic principles, who will?
If the voters don't hold the Democratic Party accountable, who will?

Will Bower


The author of this blog on the French TV channel France 24
August 26th, 2008, during the Denver Convention
Debate "Clinton and Obama : False friends ?"
L'auteure de ce blog sur France 24 :
le 26/08/2008, à l'occasion de la Convention de Denver :
Débat : "Clinton et Obama : Les faux-amis ?"

Click on this link to watch the debate :
Cliquez sur ce lien pour voir le débat :


Un Puma sur une chaîne française !
A Puma on a French TV channel
Will Bower appeared on France 24 a few weeks ago. Here is the video + the script in English, for our American friends who do not understand French :
Will Bower est apparu sur France 24 il y a quelques semaines. Voici la vidéo ainsi que le script en anglais, pour nos amis américains qui ne comprendraient pas le français :

"Welcome to Will Bower’s apartment / office !

This supporter of Hillary Clinton resigned from his job after the primaries. Now his mission is to prevent Barack Obama from being elected, and this is a full-time job.

Will “I do that nineteen hours a day… I go to bed at half past two and get up at half past six in the morning…”

Phone calls, e-mails, working on his blog, Will is a militant going from his kitchen to his sofa. According to him, the Democratic Party has betrayed its activists, and he does not trust Obama anyway.

Will “I don’t have faith in Obama …. Unity and change…It’s manufactured….”

 So what does Will think about Hillary’s apparent desire to unify and reconcile the party ?

Well, he does not believe it at all !

Will : “I don’t really see her smile, to be honest…. She does what she has to do… She only keeps her promise. But WE don’t have to support him…”

 Since she left the race, Hillary Clinton has met Obama privately several times, introducing him for example to her most generous donors in this hotel, in Washington, but for the moment, only half her supporters declare themselves ready to vote for Obama.

 Woman supporter : “I’m worried by a lot of things : the economic situation, foreign policy. I do not trust Obama. I am going to vote, because it is important,but I will Vote McCain !”

 There are only five months left for Obama to convince Clinton’ supporters.

But for some, the message of unity is still very difficult to accept…






Le 4 juillet vient d'être célébré aux Etats-Unis.
A cette occasion, une Puma nous propose la Déclaration suivante, calquée sur le texte de la Déclaration d'Indépendance, comme l'avaient fait en leur temps les premières féministes du 19ème siècle, à Seneca Falls dans leur "Declaration of Sentiments".
Cette nouvelle protestation des femmes du 21ème siècle est intitulée "Declaration of Objections" :

Declaration of Objections

When, in the course of U. S. Presidential Elections, it becomes necessary for one portion of a political party to assume among the people of the nation a position different from that which they have previously occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of their Constitution entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

In agreement with generations who have gone before us, we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes; and accordingly experience has shown that citizens are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the political structures to which they are accustomed. But political parties are not governments, and when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under authoritarianism, it is their duty to throw off such a political party, and to provide different representation for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of many in the Democratic Party, and it is this suffering which compels them to now demand the representation to which they are entitled. The recent history of both parties is a history of repeated injuries on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of authoritarian power over them, for the purpose of profit. This has rendered the Democratic Party unrecognizable to ordinary citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.


The members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and By-Laws Committee violated The DNC charter on May 31, 2008 by meeting in private, in direct violation of the Sunshine Rules Provision of said Charter.

On that same day, the Democratic Party grossly violated ethical standards when it awarded four delegates to candidate Barack Obama based on actual votes for candidate Hillary Clinton, and in addition, awarded him delegates based on votes for “Uncommitted.”

Earlier in the campaign season, the Democratic Party violated its own Delegate Selection Rules by applying penalties to only two states who broke Section 11 calendar rules, even though five states broke those rules. In addition, Florida and Michigan were originally stripped of 100% of their delegates, even though the rules stipulated a 50% penalty.

The decisions of the RBC meeting mentioned above are evidence of sexism and authoritarianism within the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Caucuses are a violation of the one-person, one-vote and secret ballot principles that have been cornerstone Democratic values for more than a century. They produced a skewed and unfair result this primary season. Caucus states are also over-represented in the pledged delegate count, in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle.

Sexism was allowed to flourish as never before not only because of the behavior of the mainstream media, but also by the actions of many in the progressive online community, the stark silence of the Democratic Leadership and because ordinary Americans, male and female, engaged in it as long as it advanced their favored candidate.

Barack Obama and his campaign exploited racial issues in the primary campaign, which risks setting back the Civil Rights movement, and cynical Democratic leaders, as well as some ordinary Democrats, approved of this campaign tactic.

The voices of 18 million voters who supported Hillary Clinton have been illegitimately silenced, ridiculed, and subjected to outright fabrications on the part of the mainstream press and the Internet press.

The evidence is present, for anyone who wants to see it, that authoritarian tendencies fueled by greed are on the rise in the Democratic Party.

Now, in view of the dismissal of one-half the Democratic voters of this primary season, their social degradation, in view of the unjust actions above mentioned, and in view of the disenfranchisement of the voters in two states, and because we do feel ourselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of a free and fair primary election, we insist that the Democratic Party address our objections, or risk the loss of our votes come November.

In entering upon the work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we will use every instrument within our power to affect our objectives. We will employ agents, circulate tracts and flyers, blog, advertise in all media, petition state and national Democratic leadership, and endeavor to enlist the press in our behalf.


Resolved, that the Democratic Party must seat the full Michigan and Florida delegation in adherence to the thoroughly Democratic principle of one-person, one-vote.

Resolved, that Michigan delegates must be awarded according to the actual votes cast, specifically that Hillary Clinton must be given 73 delegates and Barack Obama must be given 0 (zero).

Resolved, that Hillary Clinton’s name must be offered on the first roll call at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August of 2008, in accordance with tradition for 16 of the last 18 Democratic National Conventions.

Resolved, that caucuses should be abolished, and the Democratic Primary system in its entirety must be reformed to better reflect the one-person, one-vote principle, as well as the equal representation principle enshrined in the Constitution.

Resolved, that millions of women and men alike no longer think of the Democratic Party as the party for women’s issues, or for equality and fairness, or for the protection of abortion rights, and will no longer vote for them based on such criteria.

Resolved, that the cynical exploitation of cultural issues will not be rewarded with votes, and that it is part of the PUMA mission to educate the electorate about such abuses.

Resolved, that the PUMA movement is comprised of traditional and loyal Democrats who have carefully watched and recorded the events of the 2008 Primary campaign season.

Resolved, that 18 million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, more than any other presidential primary candidate in history, and they have a right to help shape the agenda and processes of the Democratic Party.

Submitted July 4, 2008