http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/11/atlantic...

Thank you for underestimating PUMA POWER!

Do you really believe Obama can Win against McCain? I'll answer for you…yes!
When Obama should be surging in the polls, at best, he's tied with McCain. Obama isn't a good enough or strong enough candidate to beat McCain.

I will be very happy to see Hillary Clinton as the Dem Nominee at the Convention. She is the Peoples choice NOT the DNC's selected not elected choice.

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_DConv0...

So Pam, who will you be voting for?

Here's how I see it: the popular vote doesn't count — delegate votes do. That wasn't a mystery. All of the candidates understood that from the beginning. The DNC also established rules determining when states could schedule primaries or caucuses. And likewise, everyone knew what those rules were ahead of time. Florida and Michigan broke the rules. It's unfortunate, but it is as it is. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Harold Ickes instrumental in establishing the rules? And didn't all of the candidates agree ahead of time to play by them?

Obama played by the rules. His campaign's organizational and strategic skills resulted in him gathering up more pledged delegates than Clinton. He did not, however, gather up enough to put him over the top without the help of superdelegates. And that, I presume, is where the supposed “chicanery” charge comes in.

According to the rules agreed upon ahead of time, Obama bested Clinton by about 150 pledged delegates. And yet the PUMA argument is that he doesn't deserve the nomination. How so? One argument is that he didn't garner as many popular votes. But even if that were true, the fact remains that was never the objective. To suggest after the fact that it was negates the rules that everyone played by — not to mention negating the role of caucus states. Another argument is that Florida and Michigan should count. But to suggest they should changes the rules after the fact again.

Obama bested Clinton because he out-maneuvered her, out-organized her, and generally out-strategized her. He did that to Hillary Clinton! Which is to say against supposedly insurmountable odds. And yet somehow he's supposed to be an inexperienced, lightweight empty suit type. If that were true, I'd say that speaks very poorly of Hillary Clinton. If she can't out-fox a lightweight nobody, how would she do against more worthy adversaries?

I reject that interpretation though. Rather, I'm inclined to think Obama really is a formidable opponent. I think the fact that he was able to out-maneuver, out-organize, and generally out-strategize a very formidable, highly intelligent, and highly qualified opponent speaks well of his skills rather than ill of hers. You claim the support Obama has garnered among superdelegates is the result of “facilitation” or “chicanery”. I suggest there may be other considerations involved. I suggest that though he has a silver tongue, there is obviously more to him than that.

I had hoped to vote for a Democrat this time around to reset the foundation of this once fair land. However, as I see it, the Party has abandoned the principles I admired and Obama is all over the place. There is no telling where he will wind up. So, it is time to re-establish party morality. If you recall, it's the Republican Party which espouses lockstep compliance, eg. Party first.

It's safe to just ignore the puma nutjobs. Let them build their little sandcastles in their playbox.

Before that, there was the consistent message that Obama wasn't actually a Dem, he didn't care about the Democratic party and his followers were part of a cult of personality who cared more about their candidate than Democratic principles. Hmm, I wonder who that's true of? (hint: “they couldn't care less if they take the party down with them.”)

I will leave you with McCain's thoughts on Sex Ed:

“Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. <b<Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

“No one knows if he is even a Natural Born Citizen and is qualified for the presidency according to A2.”

Ummm…a simple search would tell you different. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Try Wikipedia–amazing sometimes.

“You seem to dismiss the fact Hillary WON the last 5 Primarys and if the DNC had awarded her the delegate count in full from FL and MI…she would be the presumptive nominee.”

You seem to dismiss the fact that Obama rolled her on Super Tuesday. Oh, and that whole FL and MI thing–I seem to remember HRC signing something that said those delegates would be stripped. Add that to the fact that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI; I mean, how fair is that?

“You also seem to dismiss the fact Obama and his wife are Black Separatists as is The Trinity Church they belonged to for over 20 years.. The Church that promoted hatred for Whites and promoted the teachings of Farrakhan and MalcolmX.”

This may work at World Net Daily, or TownHall, or RedState, but it certainly isn't going to fly here. If you can find me anything, such as a quote or a profile, that would prove me wrong, perhaps I'd be willing to entertain it.

“No way is Obama suitable as a candidate for the US presidency.”

Why is he not suitable? What exactly makes HRC suitable? It must have been all of that sniper fire she faced…or maybe it was her failed attempt at Healthcare…or better yet, maybe it was having to go through all of the crises with Bill and his women on the side. You know maybe that last point would qualify Edwards' mistress to run for the POTUS…

Anyway, Obama has never been vetted. No one knows if he is even a Natural Born Citizen and is qualified for the presidency according to A2. Everything about Obama is secret.

You seem to dismiss the fact Hillary WON the last 5 Primarys and if the DNC had awarded her the delegate count in full from FL and MI…she would be the presumptive nominee.

You also seem to dismiss the fact Obama and his wife are Black Separatists as is The Trinity Church they belonged to for over 20 years.. The Church that promoted hatred for Whites and promoted the teachings of Farrakhan and MalcolmX.

No way is Obama suitable as a candidate for the US presidency. If you think Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning the presidency, why is the Obama camp so afraid of having her name on the ballot at the Denver Convention?

No, they don't expect Hillary to be elected or to wrest control from obama supporters. But they have turned completely against Obama and will stop at nothing to prevent him from getting elected.

If he doesn't going to get elected, it will be because he didn't effectively reach out to these voters and in fact averred he didn't need them. He may be right—I hope so.

But there are a lot of them out there—perfectly sane, ordinary people in other respects—who will do anything they can to prevent him from being elected. And since they blame the Democratic party (Brazile, Dean, etc.) for the Florida and Michigan voting problem, they couldn't care less if they take the party down with them.

This will be incomprehensible to all Dems who share Obama's dsimssive attitude to that segment of the Democratic party. It wasn't elitism; it was pure and simple hubris.

Sadly for Obama, the more other Dems make fun of them or call them out, the angrier and less rational the discourse gets. They're as bitter toward Obama's supporters as much as they are towards him.