MyDD :: Clinton Supporter My Ass [Second Update!!!]

Clinton Supporter My Ass [Second Update!!!]

by Reaper0Bot0, Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST

Darragh Murphy founded or co-founded PUMA. She never donated to the Clinton campaign. She did donate to the McCain campaign in 2000. The PUMA PAC was founded four days before Senator Clinton dropped out. I have a hard time believing, as the author of this article does, that a PAC founded four days prior to her dropping out, when it was obvious as hell she wasn't going to win, was really meant to help Senator Clinton.

To those PUMA's who really did support Senator Clinton, I'm sorry but you're being played. The Republicans are using you.

Please read the article.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comme nts/pumas_are_swiftboats_darragh_murphy/

[Update] Okay maybe I wasn't clear, so lemme try again. She gave money to McCain at one point, and that was $500. She voted for him in a *closed primary* which means she had to switch parties to do that, yet she claims to be a life-long "Democrat." She's lying. Please understand that if she was worked up enough about Senator Clinton to create PUMA, wouldn't you think she'd have donated *something* to her campaign? She gave freaking five hundred bucks to McCain. Maybe she ain't doing as well financially now, but not even five lousy bucks?

[Update #2] Okay, grlpatriot was kind enough to correspond with this individual and relayed her responses in a comment downthread (along with writing a diary on the subject). Here is my response, after some consideration: I do not rule out the possibility that the story I have relayed is factually incorrect. I do not think it is THAT inaccurate, however. My parents voted for McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000. That didn't bother me then, and it doesn't bother me now. However, they sure as hell didn't donate a dime to his campaign. Anybody who's sufficiently into a candidate to donate $500 to that campaign has more than a fleeting fancy. You've got to be pretty into the guy/gal to do that. As such, I stand by what I've written, for the most part anyway. Even if this person considers herself a Democrat, she quite obviously has considered herself a McCain supporter for eight years at least. That bespeaks a certain level of dishonesty, even if that dishonesty is primarily with herself.

Tags: PUMAs, Liars, Misled (all tags)

Permalink :: 160 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (2.00 / 8)

I really don't think they care.

they are blinded by their hatred of Obama that they want to vote for McCain,

ya think any of them care these groups are started by republicans? they will just rationalize it away

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (1.80 / 5)

Yeah. Darragh Murphy HATED Obama so much, she gave $650 to Hillary Clinton. LOL!

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neigh bors.php?type=name&lname=Murphy& fname=Darragh&search=Search

But don't let the facts get in anyone's way of a uninformed crackpot rant!

by Xov Wonk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Case in point (2.00 / 1)

This person is rationalizing the Republican lead group because the founder gave some money to Clinton the day before the group was founded. People will always believe what they want to believe. It is sad.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Case in point, indeed. (2.00 / 4)

Yes, it's sad that people will make up stuff out of thin air to discredit folks. Speaking of which, where's your link substantiating that this contribution was made the day before the group was founded?

by Xov Wonk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Case in point, indeed. (none / 0)

This is not Know Vox. The writing style and the obvious handle are meant to frame him/her. If you read all the comments at once and compare them to aliveandkickin it's pretty obvious who is behind the deception.

Add another sockpuppet to the list.

Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!

by spacemanspiff on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Case in point (2.00 / 3)

Sorry, but according to the FEC, 1st contribution was on 3/20/08 for $100.

There were other contributions on:
3/22
3/31
4/12
4/30
5/8
5/17
5/22
5/30

Most were $50, but some were $100 amounts.
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/MapA ppRefreshTran.do?tranComeFrom=stateMap&a mp;cand_id=P00003392&cand_nm_title=& amp;tranType=stateZip&showType=all&a mp;stateName=MA&zip_3=017

The air just went out of this one bot...sorry.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Case in point (none / 0)

Her listed profession from 5/8/8 onward is "PUMAPAC/BLOGGER". I think my theory about her motivations is still in tact deadender.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Case in point (none / 0)

I think your theory is tits up, and you know it. If she wants to howl at the wind, so be it. Let her. What concerns me more is your obsession with them, instead of what's going on in our own little shing-ding.

But thanks for clearing up and making the connection for me that Blue Neponset=reaper0bot0. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.

I think my theory about her motivations is still in tact deadender.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (2.00 / 1)

My Google search provided me with the identical search result.

I don't know why more people don't use it.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep.... (2.00 / 2)

Arianna Huffington is OBVIOUSLY misreporting campaign contributions to help Murphy seem like a real Clinton supporter.

by Xov Wonk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (none / 0)

Where do they get their data from? I ask because she isn't in the FEC database or in opensecrets.org.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you're not entirely right (2.00 / 1)

The part that's true is some Clinton supports may vote for McCain, but you can't say that those of us who want reforms in the DNC are being played, except by our own party, who seems to not want us as their base. While I hope Barack wins the GE and not John, he isn't the best we had to offer. Barack either seems to be floundering, going after every constituency that crosses his mind (except Hillary supporters) or he was purposely vague about where he stands and we're now finding out. He has three main groups of supporters, ideologically minded younger people who'd like to see a president of color and think he's a great candidate, the so-called 'educated' class who see him as an intellectual and thoughtful candidate, and black voters who want to show their kids that they can aspire to anything and he's shown the best chance for winning the GE. I think his religion thing is for some of his black voters who are socially conservative and might be pugs were the pug party not so racist in their domestic policies. he's trying to cobble together a winning coalition, but Hilary already had one and Barack isn't trying for her supporters, and he ought to. He may not lose the kids, who have committed, but we wont' find out until election day, will they all come out and vote, because he needs them all. I think he'll keep the educated class whatever he does. And I think he'll also keep the black vote, and he doesn't actually have to play to conservative values for that, although he seems to think so.

He could win all her supporters so easily, which is what PUMA is really about, just by adopting her 'solutions,' and her team of experts and professionals. He could then be specific about what needs to get fixed and how he's going to fix it, just like she did.

I think that if his supporters stopped just spinning whatever he does to mean what they want, and asked him to come up with some liberal solutions for our domestic problems, and asked him to be clear about his Iraq exit plan, no more out as carefully as we went in carelessly but what, how, when and why, we'd all feel okay about giving him our votes. he keeps changing on key values issues and to trust him he needs to be very clear about his priorities and his proposed solutions and then ask us, as did she, to hold him accountable. It's time for him to show competence as well as inspiration, with clarity.

So, you guys who have blogged against Hillary and are noticing that she's been consistent and he's moving further to the right of her, you have credibility with him, he says he wants to listen to you, so tell him, get specific and use Hillary's plans, she puts years of experts into developing her 'solutions,' and he says they're 99% the same, so it's time now to show it. how about it, some of you ask him?

Hillary - alternative energy

by anna shane on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on now (2.00 / 8)

HillaryIs44 was set up by a freelance Ross Perot supporter.

Nobody really thinks that these people really support Clinton. They've been anti-Obama all along.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:53:25 PM EST

Re: Come on now (none / 0)

It is rather strange that nothing was set-up by republicans in case of an Obama loss. There were plenty of overzealous Obama supporters who had claimed they wouldn't vote for Hillary if she won the nomination.

I guess there could only be 2 reasons for that.

Obama supporters didn't seem like easy marks and they would never fall for such republican tomfoolery.
They feared that Obama would become the nominee. Maybe they already had (or created) some dirt on Hillary that would have knocked her out of the running. Or maybe they just didn't know how to work an offensive against Obama that didn't make them seem like classless bigots.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (none / 0)

3) they knew, for weeks, that Obama would be the nominee, as did all people who could count, so they didn't waste their time trying to develop a way of drawing off disappointed Obama supporters.

McCain just lied again

by wrb on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (none / 0)

Yes but that doesn't explain Hillaryis44 which was throughout the primary season an anti-Obama blog (which could be argued about noquarter as well, but I'm less familiar with that site).

The fact that the have never posted anything positive about Hillary in their about pages. There isn't one shred of reason to support Hillary on their blog. They don't have any information regarding her record. It has always been under construction.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:41:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (none / 0)

true dat

McCain just lied again

by wrb on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

These PUMA morons are now saying (1.90 / 11)

stuff about Clinton that they used to get outraged over--that her support for Obama is insincere, that she's campaigning for him only to further her own career, etc etc.

They aren't Democrats.

by Geekesque on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:56:55 PM EST

Re: These PUMA morons are now saying (1.88 / 17)

No, it's worse than that. They are delusional at this point.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These PUMA morons are now saying (2.00 / 7)

DTaylor, thank you.

Maybe in your universe that made sense to do, and was totally just and fair.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:24:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These PUMA morons are now saying (none / 0)

damn...i hadn't seen him in so long i figured he had gotten banned.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These PUMA morons are now saying (2.00 / 1)

Don't call people morons.

by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:55:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (2.00 / 8)

This from an update in that article :

So "lifelong Democrat" Darragh Murphy not only confirmed that she gave a sizable donation to John McCain in 2000 (and never gave a penny to her "hero" Al Gore), but she also admitted that she voted for McCain in the primaries as well.** Confused? Well, you ought to be.

Of course, they will say they are being "silenced" and that the bots are scared and that's why they are being attacked. The "brown shirts" are an internet army who quiet dissent!

The PUMA's will comment on this diary while saying they are not PUMA's but Democrats who hold Obama's feet to the fire. It's the MyDD way.

Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!

by spacemanspiff on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:58:33 PM EST

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (1.80 / 5)

Wasn't Obama's position in Michigan that too many of his followers voted in the GOP primary for a revote to be fair?

Seriously you guys are coming unglued...

July 4 is on Friday relax have fun...

by dtaylor2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (1.62 / 8)

PUMA!

Like clockwork.

Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!

by spacemanspiff on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (2.00 / 6)

Why did you TR Reaperbot's comment above? It's not TR worthy, an organization founded by a republican solely to divide the democratic party, going against everything Hillary stands for, an organization that will in effect, if it's goal is achieved, will have set Hillary back at least 4 years through McCain veto power on any health care legislation, will appoint conservative Judges in SCOTUS and Federal courts, will continue Bush's administration causing further damage to Country in several ways, death/injury of troops, wars with Iran, drilling in protected areas, further economic downfall (he doesn't do tax and spend), and so on. If you cannot see that destruction of a party for recourse to perceived misdeeds done to Hillary will actually prevent and deter her own caree, goals, objectives, and work already accomplished, and who is the 2nd most powerful figure in said party you want to destroy, then obviously, you have a disconnet with reality...what's that word again?

You are not fighting for Hillary, you are fighting for McCain.

Don't troll rate the truth just because rationality blows your mind as well as the whole silly reasoning behind that mindnumbing organization.

by KLRinLA on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (2.00 / 4)

Many Dems voted for Romney in the MI primary for reasons similar to why die-hard Republicans voted for Clinton later--they knew their primary didn't matter but wanted the other race to continue for as long as possible.

But you knew that already.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (2.00 / 4)

THAT and.....

We don't know how many Obama supporters voted Clinton because she was their favorite candidate of the ones left on the ballot

We don't know how many Edwards supporters voted Clinton because she was their favorite candidate of the ones left on the ballot

We don't know how many Biden supporters voted Clinton because she was their favorite candidate of the ones left on the ballot

We don't know how many Richardson supporters voted Clinton because she was their favorite candidate of the ones left on the ballot

The only thing that makes voter ballots worth anything more than toilet paper is that they are (supposed) to be an accurate reflection of the will of the voters.

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporters My Ass (2.00 / 1)

Right on Spacemanspiff. I'm not surprised at all.

by Politicalslave on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporter My Ass (2.00 / 5)

I've noticed that the anti-Obama crowd has been pretty quiet so far today. That couldn't have anything to do with aliveandstinkin' being absent could it? He hasn't posted since some time around 3am. I notice that none of the users being accused of being his sockpuppets have posted during that time either. Gee, I wonder...

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:04:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton Supporter My Ass (none / 0)

I was accused of being a sock puppet and I am posting. I'm not anyone's alter ego by the way. LOL I'm my own ego. LOL

by 12 dogs and a blog on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:28:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporter My Ass (none / 0)

Alive has the Obamatons so wrapped around his finger that they've literally lost their minds.

It's hilarious.

If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat

by rankles on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

PUMA talk is all 'ass'. (2.00 / 9)

Honestly, it's a small group of nuts. Why are we even giving the time it would take to flick a dingleberry into the bowl to discussion about these folks?

Let them be, and they will implode on their own.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST

I've never agreed with you more. (2.00 / 11)

And the converse applies to the pro-Obama nutters who STILL want to kick Hillary around.

by Geekesque on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:42:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've never agreed with you more. (2.00 / 8)

Occasionally, just like the audience in a 3-d movie, when we all take of our colored glasses at the same time, we all see the same thing.

How ya doin'?

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd be doing better if McCain (2.00 / 5)

would just stop whining and throwing himself a pity party already.

by Geekesque on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd be doing better if McCain (2.00 / 4)

Nah, let him whine, it makes him look more like Reagan near the end and less like a CIC or POTUS should look. And if he picks Huckabee, that will seal the deal and make him officially 'too scary' for lots of folks to stomach.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:02:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've never agreed with you more. (2.00 / 1)

Oh please! I haven't seen anyone around here, except trolls, trying to kick Hillary around. You need to stop with this victimhood game.

by venician on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If there's a human being on the blogs (2.00 / 1)

who is less susceptible to the charge of throwing a pity party for Clinton than me, I haven't encountered him/her.

by Geekesque on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If there's a human being on the blogs (2.00 / 0)

Hahaha, true dat, Geek, but it's nice to be on the same side again!

"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC

by skohayes on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If there's a human being on the blogs (2.00 / 0)

that was just a bot post you replied to. pure knee-jerking time LOL!

by zerosumgame on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Media narrative for the win (2.00 / 6)

This PUMA lady is getting national media attention. The more we can discredit her and her ilk the easier it will be to put to rest the idea that the Democratic Party is divided.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Supporter My Ass (2.00 / 4)

Hillary Clinton has a widespread of appeal, particularly those who are Republicans with hawkish views on foreign policy.

Seems rather absurd to say "he/she voted/donated to x candidate in 2000 therefore CANNOT be a Clinton supporter" - I'm pretty sure plenty of Obama supporters did the same.

So lets stop it with the stupidity of "GOTCHA" arguments.

by Jaz on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST

Re: Clinton Supporter My Ass (none / 0)

No but she isn't what she claims to be: a lifelong Democrat and specifically a Gore supporter. It's completely absurd to think that she gave money to McCain to help Gore out. But that's exactly what she claims.

All I know is that she's a very weird person who doesn't warrant the large podium that she's been given.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'Absurd' only to those ignorant of (2.00 / 4)

... the relevant political history.

In 2000, hundreds of thousands of diligent Democrats crossed party lines with their money and votes - trying to derail Bush by boosting McCain.

A Gore contribution in the primary would have been wasted - he locked it up early.

A Gore contribution in the general election would have been returned - he and Bush both opted for the $76M in public financing.

Massachusetts, BTW, was a semi-closed primary. You didn't have to be a Republican. You could be unaligned (and you could change that designation as late as 20 days before the election).

How long have you been a Demomcrat? And how much attention were you paying in 2000?

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Absurd' only to those ignorant of (2.00 / 1)

Mojo only for your very salient points, but not for your signature line.

It's time to let it go man.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0)

Keep telling yourself that a "life-long Democrat" has never given money to anyone but McCain before this cycle.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Absurd' only to those ignorant of (1.50 / 2)

Can you possibly make your point without insulting others, or is that your real point? I don't think I need to whip out my Democratic credentials to prove anything to someone so unnecessarily antagonistic. Just because your worldview is different does not mean that it was the prevailing sentiment of the time.

In 2000 I thought Bush would be far easier to beat than McCain. He had far less experience, wasn't a war hero, and even without all the evidence of today--was as dumb as a post. Myself and many other Democrats had a begrudging respect for the McCain of yesteryear. That seemed a bit dangerous, because respect could turn into votes.

I can see an act of civil disobedience warranting a vote for a Republican. But I don't know a single Democrat who would give up their hard-earned money for one. I call that support.

Oh, and wtf? Even if Gore didn't need monetary support for the primary, he certainly needed it for the GE.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Care to suggest a synonym? (2.00 / 1)

Reiterating a point of fact you seem to have missed, Gore could not have accepted your contribution in the general election campaign. He accepted a public campaign finance grant of ~$75M -- foregoing individual contributions -- and the various party committees were allowed an additional ~$15M in coordinated expenditures.

As to your evident pride in having misjudged the danger that was Bush ... I don't really know what to say. "wtf?"

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:33:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Care to suggest a synonym? (none / 0)

I suppose if you call someone your hero you probably give them money during the primary in hopes that if they didn't need it (and opted out of public financing)they could then use it for the general. Even if it were only a symbolic donation, it makes far more sense than financially supporting the Republican candidate.

And how far do you go before you are furthering the Republican cause? What about volunteering for Republicans or going to ralley's?

Your rhetorical arguements- while being well structured-lack sincerity. It comes off more like an intellectual exercise in playing devil's advocate. Maybe it comes from the fact that the person you're defending will have voted for John McCain at least twice, but for whatever reason your arguements aren't particularly compelling.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 'Absurd' only to those ignorant of (none / 0)

KnowVox is terribly afraid of true Democrats. I don't understand why he bothers to leave his echo-chamber to troll our site. PUMA's are beginning to look just like our regular run of the mill anarchists.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

AndrewSullivan, kos, Arianna, AmericaBlog (2.00 / 5)

all former (or current) Republicans. What is your point?

by catfish2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:19:52 PM EST

Re: AndrewSullivan, kos, (2.00 / 5)

They actually switched because their policy views changed. Not because they thought that a particular politician was really neato.

If I'm charitable I can believe that these folks actually switched over to Hillary because of Hillary, but doesn't that really undercut the whole "I've been a Democrat since Buchanan" meme they keep trotting out?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AndrewSullivan, kos, (2.00 / 1)

I'm not so sure that all of those folks switched because their policy views changed so much as their opportunistic views of what would bring them fame and monetary game changed.

At least two of the ones mentioned are lower than the muck I scrape off my shoe, as far as I am concerned. The third has a blog I no longer visit.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And kos has lost faith in Obama (2.00 / 1)

vowed not to give a dime to him here.

by catfish2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And kos has lost faith in Obama (none / 0)

Actually, it's a bit more nuanced then that, here is what KOS posted:

"I'm curious as to why people think that me saying I won't give Obama my $2,300 somehow means I'm undermining him. When he gives me a reason to open up my wallet, I will. But I also refuse to reward bad behavior.

Which should be quite ironic to all those MyDD who were on a HATE=KOS rally, because, of course, Kos was SO IN THE BAG for Obama.

So, Kos, being a purist, is pissed?

For now, at least.

My mom believed in Jesus, the Pope and FDR..... Just not necessarily in that order.

by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And kos has lost faith in Obama (2.00 / 3)

My dislike for kos was fueled by his constant denigration of Hillary. He was 'ABH' to begin with, and well, now he has to bear the taste of the fruit of his labor.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And kos has lost faith in Obama (2.00 / 1)

And what of Jerome's constant denigration of Obama?

by venician on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And kos has lost faith in Obama (none / 0)

But Jerome was right.

KOS is simply an opportunistic little man with little or no brain.

If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat

by rankles on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AndrewSullivan, kos, (none / 0)

since I saw no time-line on the party switch, and if it was in this primary seasoon, do keep in mind they MAY have just been following the (flawed and stupid) directions of Kos himself to do so to mess with the repuke primary. No idea if true or not, but then again you have tossed quite a few factually challenged assertions in just this diary alone to make it clear that that is not you ultimate aim...

by zerosumgame on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AndrewSullivan, kos, Arianna, AmericaBlog (2.00 / 5)

She claims to be a life long Democrat but she voted for McCain in a closed primary. Ergo, she is lying about being a life long Democrat.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AndrewSullivan, kos, Arianna, AmericaBlog (2.00 / 2)

Umm, how many long life republicans voted to support Obama and Clinton this time and switched back. Does that man they are no longer life-long Republicans?

You can be a Democrat or Republican on principal but switch your party affiliation for other reasons.

by Jaz on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AndrewSullivan, kos, Arianna, AmericaBlog (2.00 / 8)

I don't think you realize what a closed primary is. Only registered Republicans can vote in a closed Republican primary. Once you register as a Republican you are no longer a "life long Democrat".

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But D.M. didn't have to register Republican (2.00 / 2)

You have so many things wrong here. I've covered some of them above.

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AndrewSullivan, kos, Arianna, AmericaBlog (none / 0)

Do you know a lot of life-long Democrats who give money to Republicans?

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:15:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: AndrewSullivan, kos, Arianna, AmericaBlog (none / 0)

Maybe Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller?

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In the case in question (McCain 2000) ... (2.00 / 2)

... it was quite the thing to do.

If you didn't -- and you don't even have friends who did -- are you sure you're a Democrat?

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The cognitive dissonance brigade to the rescue! (2.00 / 1)

So you and your friends give money to Republicans, you're voting for Republicans and defending them on Democratic blogs? And then you accuse me of not being a Democrat because I don't give money to republicans? Just wanted to get this straight.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The cognitive dissonance brigade to the rescue! (2.00 / 1)

well you can try to get something straight for once, but when you are forced to mis-state what was said like you just did, chances are you are not capable of getting it straight.

by zerosumgame on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The cognitive dissonance brigade to the rescue! (none / 0)

By implying that I should know Democrats who gave to Republicans and voted for them in 2000, he is implicating himself and the people that he knows.

And it's transparent by his tagline that he is associating himself with the PUMA crowd. So he and other Democrats he knows(PUMA Dems--how's that for an oxymoron?) also won't be voting for Democrats because the party screwed them or whatever.

And here he is on a Democratic blog defending someone who in all probability is a Republican operative. And then calls me a Republican because I didn't give money to Republicans and vote for them in 2000.

Only a very desperate troll would refuse to appreciate the sweet irony of that.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a lovely day in the neighborhood... (none / 0)

Will you be my neighbor?
It's so peaceful today!
Photobucket

by Mae Scott on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:20:47 PM EST

Only the Brain Dead believe that PUMA is a back (1.90 / 10)

lash of Clinton supporters.
While 'some" may have been Clinton supporters, those who still are cognitive won't go near PUMA because it is against everything that Clinton supported.
PUMA is just a sad group of Repugs using some brain dead Clinton supporters to cause problems because they KNOW they screwed up when they allowed McCain to become to candidate for their party.

As for the idiot who started it? LOL Without being smart enough to figure out that her lies would be found out? She's juicing on her little 15 minutes of fame.
Vote Repug, don't donate to Hillary and then try to lie? Good going, bet she's a failure in real life as well.

by Grissom1001 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:51:07 PM EST

Thank you (2.00 / 6)

Reaper0bot0,

Thanks for the info. I have not had time to check this out for myself and if you are correct (and I suspect you are) I am glad to know this and not concern myself any longer with these sort of groups. They are the same old shit that repugs do. Now lets get on with the important stuff.

The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:12:20 PM EST

Re: No Thanks (1.00 / 5)

You suspected wrong:

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neigh bors.php?type=name&lname=Murphy& fname=Darragh&search=Search

by Xov Wonk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Thanks (1.50 / 2)

TR'd for dishonesty, you are willing to lie just to protect Republican operatives.

shame on you.

by DemsLandslide2008 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm confused on the TR... (none / 0)

Sorry, I'm not particularly clear on this. Is the site inaccurate, easy to forge, otherwise untrustworthy?

It lists the donation as second quarter 2008 (so it could've been yesterday), but I don't see how the link itself is dishonest (again, possibly because I'm not familiar with the site itself).

by TCQuad on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

TR abuse, as usual (2.00 / 1)

The Huffington Post's donation tracking software is NOT inaccurate or dishonest.

by Xov Wonk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's misleading (1.00 / 1)

Because Know Vox wants people to think this is something other than a late-in-the-day donation to make it slightly less obvious that PUMA is a GOP front. Know Vox assumes that MyDD readers are as dumb as Know Vox.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's misleading (none / 0)

Why does the listing for the donation say "MR"?

MURPHY, DARRAGH C MR
CARLISLE VALLEY,MA 01741
HOMEMAKER    2/28/00
$500    McCain, John (R)

Middle initial is C, so that leads me to think "MR" means "Mr." I checked an old NECN interview with Darragh Murphy and, unless more has changed since 2000 than party affiliation, Darragh Murphy isn't a guy.

Disclaimer: for the record, I don't support the PUMA cause, but I'm always cautious before jumping on to a negative campaign (against people or politicians) to make sure that the facts are accurate. And, in this case, there is clearly some dissonance between the resources that people are culling their facts from.

by TCQuad on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clerical error? (none / 0)

The only other explanation is that there are two Darragh Murphy's, one female and one male, in Carlisle Valley, MA.

Doesn't seem very likely.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:11:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Q2 ends in June (none / 0)

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Thanks (2.00 / 1)

It's funny how her name comes up but when I put in my name and names of friends and relatives who I know donated, none of us show up.

It's also odd that it doesn't show up on the FEC website, but her McCain contribution does.

by Tenafly Viper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reaper0bot0 is incorrect (2.00 / 2)

... and is further evidently unaware of the context in which Democrats crossed over to back McCain in the 2000 primaries.

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where is your evidence (none / 0)

that Murphy was one of those crossovers?

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess you were aware of the DNC coup long before (2.00 / 1)

we did! Without knowing how Florida and Michigan were going to turn out how could you say:

when it was obvious as hell she wasn't going to win

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:54:45 PM EST

PUMA PAC was founded (2.00 / 1)

on June 3. The RBC meeting where MI and FL received fair and just punishments occurred on May 31.

Lay off the glue.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:08:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair my ass! (2.00 / 1)

Even in Zimbabwe they do not give delegates to some one not on the ballot.

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But they do (none / 0)

hold sham elections, where they lie to the voters and tell them the election doesn't count. MI and FL should be grateful they got delegates at all.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PUMA PAC was founded (none / 0)

Nope! You're wrong there as the facts are against you.

According to the FEC PUMAPAC was already established on or before May 8th.

But those are nice little planes your building there... ;) LOL.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only FEC document (none / 0)

that I've seen was filled out June 3. If you have another document suggesting an earlier date please link.

by JJE on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:32:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess you were aware of ..... (2.00 / 1)

Heck, it was obvious 'from day one' that there was no way in hell that the establishment was going to allow someone without a penis to win.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:10:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess you were aware of ..... (1.00 / 2)

Are you fucking high?

She had a 100+ superdelegate lead before Iowa. I demand you acknowledge that.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess you were aware of ..... (2.00 / 2)

Of course she did, as the presumptive 'frontrunner'. That and a $5 bill will get you a latte grande mocha at Starbucks.

Look, while she was touted as 'invincible' the undercurrent of the establishment was to find 'anybody but Hillary' to pin the nomination on.

You can 'demmand' all you'd like, it doesn't change the truth.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The invincibility stuff was made up and pedaled by (2.00 / 1)

media and the Obama campaign.

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Facts are stubborn things (2.00 / 2)

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0)

Being the establishment candidate gets you a head start and the backing of Rendell and Strickland. "Undercurrent" is a synonym for "I can't back this up with anything substantial."

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

You have your opinion, I have mine.

Yours is no beter than mine.

Deal with it.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mine is true (1.00 / 1)

and supported by facts. Yours is just making shit up because you can't admit that your candidate lost fair and square. It's like a child who loses at t-ball and blames the umps.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Race baiting Clinton was not fair!!!! (none / 0)

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:46:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In fact there is nothing fair about Obama! (none / 0)

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mine is true (2.00 / 1)

Actually, I have acknowledged that Clinton lost, and she lost because she was out gamed by Obama. I have given Obama the points for a more well played game. There are folks who, like myself, (and I am male by the way) who believe (but cannot prove, because how can it be proven?) that Clinton was doomed to fail from day one simply because she was 'she'. There are certain elements of even the Democratic party who simply are not going to allow a female POTUS at this itme.

Now you can do the 'thing' that you do oh so well in every comment you make to me, you can go off and be insulting and denigrating all you like, but you can't prove my opinion is not valid and based on a truth : the 'glass ceiling'.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not quite (2.00 / 1)

you are blaming the "DNC establishment" for somehow preventing Clinton from winning. The implication is that absent some kind of discrimination against a candidate without a penis, Clinton would be the nominee.

I can't "prove" you are wrong, though simply summarzing your opinion goes a long way toward refuting it.

But you are making a claim and can't support it at all. There is no "truth" to support your opinion, just conjecture. And there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. So you're entitled to your opinion but there's no reason for anyone to respect it.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:02:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite (2.00 / 1)

No, I am stating something that lots of folks believe to be truth: that there is a 'glass ceiling' for females in regards to the POTUS, and even folks in the Democratic party are not immune to having that predisposition, anymore than they are immune to having a racially biased predisposition, which I agree does exist. My implication that if CLinton had indeed been a 'male' that 'he' would indeed be the nominee is my belief, and I feel it is accurate. You feel otherwise. Your stating I am wrong and you are right does nothing but disallow for any 'gray ' area, or better put, implies that you are unwilling to allow that you could be perhaps a bit wrong.

There's a mountain of evidence for my opinion, you just won't acknowledge it: lots of folks have covered the sexism in the media and the bias against Clinton due to her gender. I know, you don't think it exists. I don't need for folks to respect my opinion, because there are lots of folks who share it, so it's not mine alone.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the problem (none / 0)

you began with a claim about bias about the DNC establishment. And now, perhaps because that claim is untenable, you've moved on to media bias and vague feelings about how there is a glass ceiling.

That's all well and good, and I do in fact agree that the media showed gender bias against Clinton, but it does nothing at all to prove that the "DNC establishment" had it in for Clinton.

And you've shown nothing whatsoever to connect any of this to the simple fact that Obama got more delegates than Clinton did. Just because A and B happened at the same time does not mean A caused B. Nor does the fact that your belief is sincerely held and widely shared make it true.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is the problem (2.00 / 1)

Why don't you just point to all the female candidates we have had in the Democratic party who were successful in winning the nomination for POTUS? That would surely prove that my opinion is invalid.

Well, there's a pesky fact.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again (none / 0)

your claim was that the DNC establishment was biased against Clinton. This does nothing at all to prove that claim.

by JJE on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:13:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once again (2.00 / 1)

Please read the entire commentary again. Now please show me where I said "DNC establisment".

The use of the word 'establishment' doesn't have the letters 'DNC' attached in my comments, but does in all of yours. It was a subtle way for YOU to get across an implication that I did not make, and practice your usual 'truthiness'.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite (none / 0)

And there's no glass ceiling for blacks in regard to POTUS?

by french imp on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite (none / 0)

Yes, there are 'glass ceilings' for AA when it comes to the POTUS. I freely acknowledge that fact. However, when it became quite apparent that the Democratic party had a choice to make: which candidate gets to be 'first' to 'break' that 'glass ceiling', they chose the candidate who most fit their image of POTUS, CIC, the candidate with a penis.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:35:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite (none / 0)

What do you mean by 'The Democratic Party'?
This competition was very narrow. How can you affirm that she could never have won? HRC could have won if her campaign had been better, and BHO's, less brillant. It was a matter of a few percentage points.

In my opinion the odds against BHO were much higher than against HRC, for a whole host of reasons.

by french imp on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite (none / 0)

If by the "Democratic Party" you mean voters, then sure.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]